Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, May 11, 1994 - 1:30 p.m.

Page Number 2517

Speaker:

I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:

We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Penikett:

I rise to rectify an error from yesterday. We neglected to pay tribute to the Government Leader on his birthday. Perhaps we could wish him happy morning-after his birthday or some other similar tribute.

Speaker:

Yes, we all grow older as time goes on.

Speaker:

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

Are there any Reports of Committees?

Are there any Petitions?

Are there any Bills to be introduced?

Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources.

Many Yukoners have told me that they are concerned that some Yukon outfitting territories have been bought by foreigners who are getting around the provisions in our Yukon Wildlife Act that work to ensure Yukon and Canadian ownership. I have been told that a person whose principal residence is in Europe now owns three territories in the Yukon, including the Government Leader's former outfit. In the past, the Minister told me he was against this and that the laws should not permit it. Has he heard these concerns from Yukoners and is he going to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Yes, I have heard those comments before. I have also checked and had the department check on it, and all outfits in the Yukon are held 51 percent by Yukon people, and a landed immigrant is entitled to hold a business the same as anybody else.

Mr. Harding:

The problem is that our legislation clearly states that outfitter concession holders must be natural residents of the Yukon and that any certificate share structure must have all voting shares held by Canadian citizens, not landed immigrants. Is the Minister aware of any cases where voting shares of a corporation involved in outfitting are not held by Canadian citizens?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I believe there is a landed immigrant who has been here for a number of years and is considered a Canadian citizen in every way except in his right to vote.

Mr. Harding:

The problem here is that there are certain reasons the Wildlife Act was brought about - to protect ownership. What appears to be happening or what some people think is happening is that people are getting around the laws. That is a pity. I have been told by reliable sources as well that a foreign owner of a Yukon outfitting territory may be bringing friends into the territory on holiday visas and having them work in his area while they are here. This would certainly take jobs away from Yukoners. Has the Minister heard any of these concerns and is he concerned about it?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

It completely amazes me that this type of question is coming up. For seven years they were in power. For seven years the legislation was there. They made no effort to change it. Now they continually jump on it. It really amazes me that these people could be this way.

Yes, I am aware that complaints were made. I checked with Immigration and there was no basis for the complaints.

Question re: Outfitting territories, foreign ownership

Mr. Harding:

The problem here is that this has only happened in the last couple of years. The Minister is now the Minister and he is being asked to take some responsibility for it. That is all we are doing. I do not know why he would be so indignant about that; he is, after all, the Minister.

We do have some legislative jurisdiction here. Is the Minister prepared to do a public, and not a private, investigation into the sale of these territories to foreigners, so we can either stop it through the existing laws, or make some changes to the laws that would prevent it in the future? He has told me he is concerned about it. Let us try and do something.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I find it quite amazing. All three outfits we are talking about were sold when they were in the government, not us.

Mr. Harding:

That is interesting, because it has come to light through concerns raised by Yukoners that something may not have been quite right in what went on. But, I guess there is a process for renewal of concession licences and renewal of certificates coming up, that this Minister is going to have to preside over. Under the provisions in the act, he has the power to stop that if it is in the public interest. Is he going to be stopping it, pending a thorough public investigation, seeing as he is going to be the one asked to renew them?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I find it amazing that the former government can run it for seven years this way, and all of a sudden they want me to change all the legislation. With all the problems we have getting legislation through here, I would be a damn fool to bring it in.

Mr. Harding:

It is unfortunate that the Minister does not choose to respect the law that is there. He is refusing to publicly investigate the process of the sale of Yukon outfitting territories. He is refusing to bring changes to the Wildlife Act to ensure, if people are getting around our laws, we can prevent that in future.

This is not protecting the interest of Yukoners and the public. Whose interest is the Minister protecting?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I believe that the Member opposite is accusing me of protecting a certain interest, and I will not bother answering questions of that nature in the Legislature.

Question re: Teacher contract negotiations

Mr. Cable:

Yesterday, I was questioning the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission on payroll savings that he was working toward in his negotiations with the teachers.

I was a little surprised when the Minister said that he would have to go back and check some of the numbers that I had received and put to him. These are the projected savings for the fiscal year 1994-95.

Would the Minister of the Public Service Commission tell this House who in the political camp is driving the negotiation bus, and who is giving instructions to the negotiators? Is it the Minister or someone else?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

It is the Minister.

Mr. Cable:

In view of that fact and the fact that the Minister

Page Number 2518

has spoken on many occasions about anticipated savings, and in view of the fact that the numbers I put to him yesterday included payroll savings from the teachers for the present fiscal year, 1994-95, of $650,000, which included the two-percent rollback, the Yukon bonus and changes in the increment freeze, could the Minister tell us if what he wants for the teachers in the 1994-95 year is less than $1 million - about one-fifth of one percent of the total budget?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

Yes, if the Member is relating it to the total spending of the government, that percentage figure may be right.

We were quite flexible in our negotiations with the teachers in respect to savings. There is still an amount on the table. We are willing to talk about where, what and how the savings will be achieved.

Mr. Cable:

In view of the fact that the desired savings are less than one percent of the total budget, in view of the fact that there is obviously no immediate financial emergency, or one anticipated in the next few months, and in view of the fact that this House can be called together on relatively short notice, why are we running down the hill, pell-mell, toward this May 20 deadline? What is magic about that date, other than the fact that it is the beginning of the long weekend?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

I disagree and take exception to some of the Member's preamble to the supplementary. Let me just say that it is our responsibility, as a government, to get our financial house under control. The teachers' present collective agreement expires June 30. We have been in collective bargaining, and we signalled our intention in the middle of March and asked for input and assistance in achieving the savings. May 20 seemed like an appropriate date for us to hear from others - to take that input and draft it into legislation, if necessary, so that it could be passed this spring, and so there would be some control over our finances, as well as some stability.

Question re: Teacher contract negotiations

Ms. Moorcroft:

Yesterday, the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission said he could not confirm that one of the government's demands was that teachers should pay for their own professional development. He stood up here just now and said that he is the one in charge and giving the direction.

Did the Minister mean that he did not know, or that he was not prepared to admit, that that was part of the government's position?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

That was discussed at the table. One of our proposals was that a professional development fund continue to be financed. We were prepared to be flexible with respect to that, but talks at the table broke down. There is no hard and fast position on either side in respect to professional development.

Ms. Moorcroft:

Yesterday, the Minister said that teachers were "even less flexible than we were," but he has not provided one shred of evidence that the government offered any position other than its final line: do things our way, or we will legislate.

Why will the Minister not stop this charade and admit that the government showed no flexibility whatsoever, and had no intention of bargaining in good faith with the teachers?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

That simply is not true at all.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister said that the government does not intend to consider conciliation or arbitration, even though the Education Act clearly provides those remedies when talks break down.

In addition, the Minister's letter to teachers on April 19, 1994, clearly violated the spirit of sections 274 and 275 of this act. As a lawyer, and as a Minister of the Crown, the Minister should be upholding the law, not trying to do end-runs around it for political purposes.

What other laws is the Minister prepared to break, ignore or re-write whenever his new friends on the other side of this House find them inconvenient?

Hon. Mr. Nordling:

That is nonsense. If that Member is accusing me of breaking a law, then she had better stand up, make the accusation, and perhaps even put her seat on the line.

Question re: Kluane Game Sanctuary access road

Mr. Harding:

I fear the Minister for the Public Service Commission may be getting some more court action going.

Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Harding:

He seems to do that whenever someone criticizes him.

I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources concerning the Kluane Game Sanctuary access.

The Minister said that he had talked with lodge owners and others in the area about putting roads in to the Kluane Game Sanctuary, yet he has declined to tell us where he is talking about putting the roads. Could the Minister tell us where he is talking about putting the roads and what the First Nations in the area have said about those roads?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

As I pointed out before, I cannot very well tell the Member, when I do not know. We are looking at the one that will be the most feasible because of our fiscal restraint. We can probably only handle one at a time.

The First Nation concerned would be the Kluane First Nation. I have explained to the chief that there is no way we would interfere at all in land claims, and that he would have a say in anything that we did when we decided on road access.

Mr. Harding:

I want to ask the Minister this: he says he has talked to lodge owners in the area about where he wants to put the roads and where they would like to see the roads, but he continues to tell me that he cannot tell me where that will be until he knows. What is he talking to the lodge owners about - the weather?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

That is a very good topic at this time of the year, because we really need rain to make the crops grow.

Anyway, I have talked to different lodge owners in different areas. They all have different suggestions and we are looking at all of them. Naturally, every lodge owner wants one in his area. We are looking at this and trying to make a decision about the best location. We need to make sure that the cost will be appropriate for our budget.

Mr. Harding:

It is interesting to point out that the Minister has talked to no one else. He is saying that all the lodge owners want roads everywhere, but he has not talked to anyone else in the area. He has only talked to the Kluane First Nation after the issue was brought up in the Legislature.

I want to ask another question about the people he is talking to: there are a lot of placer claims in the area; has he received any lobbies or requests from placer claim owners or operators for road development in the game sanctuary?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

There has been ongoing discussions for some time, not necessarily with me, but also with the former government. The people in the Burwash area would like to have a road in order to proceed with their placer mining. Yes.

Question re: Kluane Game Sanctuary access road

Mr. Harding:

This is interesting. I would like to pursue this in the context of the Environment Act.

We have now learned that the Minister has been talking to lodge owners, a few other people in the area and placer miners regarding putting roads into the game sanctuary. He has had precious little communication with First Nations or anyone else in the area who might be concerned. They are not necessarily against the idea, but they want to have some input into this issue.

Page Number 2519

This smacks of keeping things very secretive.

The same thing has happened for the changes that he has proposed publicly for the Environment Act. He says he wants to make some changes, but he is not prepared to tell anyone what they are. Can he tell the House now about his proposed changes to the Environment Act?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

I believe I answered that. We have a committee of high-level people in the government looking at the act. There are several changes that they would probably like to see, but they have not brought the paper to Cabinet.

Mr. Harding:

Why does the Minister have the bureaucrats running the Yukon? Why does the Minister not instruct the bureaucrats to go out to Yukoners and let Yukoners tell the government what they think should be the case with the Environment Act?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

As soon as they complete their work, it will go out for a public hearing.

Mr. Harding:

We have been told that there is some casual consultation underway with the group that initiated this, the Chamber of Commerce, which has the Minister marching to their drum. Has there been any communication on the various act changes between the Chamber of Commerce and the Minister and/or his department on the changes?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

Not with me, and not, to my knowledge, with the department.

Question re: Land claims, approval of Parliament

Mr. Penikett:

Yesterday I asked the Government Leader questions about an important policy matter concerning the land claims legislation, which is going before Parliament some time soon. Could I ask the Government Leader this: in respect to the land claims negotiations, who makes policy? I ask the question because the implication of his answer yesterday was that it was made by negotiators at the table, rather than by the Minister and Cabinet. Could he tell us who actually makes policy on questions such as the one I put to him yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

When I answered the question yesterday, I thought I made it quite clear that we make policy. If the negotiators are not able to carry out our policy, they come back to us and ask for new direction if something comes up that they need new direction on. In this instance, there was nothing that came up on which they needed new direction.

Mr. Penikett:

I asked the Minister a question about one of the most basic policy questions affecting self-government agreements and land claims policy, an issue that was in dispute between the Council for Yukon Indians and the federal government. The Minister, in his first answer, referred to it as a technical question. In his second answer, he said it was "not something that was bumped up to me, requiring my decision or a Cabinet decision." Given that there was a disagreement between the First Nations of the Yukon and the federal government, and given that almost certainly this government would have been asked its position by the federal government with respect to the wording in the legislation, who dealt with the federal government, who communicated our position, and what was our position?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I answered the question yesterday. The Member opposite says that I did not, so I will answer it again. I said that this government has always supported the view that the land claims and self-government agreement should have constitutional protection. We did that before we ever took office over here. In reply to the question that he asked, we took that position with the federal government. We supported the First Nations, the federal government refused. There was nothing for the negotiators to come back to me with for clear direction. They had the direction prior to the discussion taking place.

Mr. Penikett:

If that is the case, then land claims negotiations go on in a very different way now than they used to. Is the Government Leader saying that he did not communicate directly with the Minister on this important question at all? He wrote no letter? He had no telephone conversation? The land claims negotiators did not even tell him that this was an issue at the table? Why did he not either side with the federal government or side with the Council for Yukon Indians? It sounds like he played no role in the discussion at all.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I just said that we sided with the Council for Yukon Indians - I just said that. This whole issue relates to the Liberal's red book. At least I got applause from one Member of this House. What happened was that the First Nations wanted a change in the wording so that they did not have to wait six months for the review of whether self-government agreements would have constitutional protection.

Question re: Jury selection

Mrs. Firth:

I have a question for the Minister of Justice. It is a constituency question. I have a constituent who is summoned for jury duty. The instructions that were given to her were completely inconsistent with what actually happened. The Minister has received a copy of the letter that the constituent sent to the judge. The effect was that what happened put this person in a conflict situation where she could not pick up her six-year old child from kindergarten, because she was told by the sheriff that she was not allowed to leave the room where the jury selection was being made. She wrote a letter to the Minister asking him to amend the form letters that are sent out, to accurately reflect the amount of time perspective jurors are going to need. The Minister has responded to her saying that his department was taking the matter into consideration, and thanked her for her suggestion. Could the Minister tell us exactly what the department is doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Clearly, they are taking it under consideration. I am not exactly sure whether or not the form letter has been changed. I will make enquiries and let the Member know.

Mrs. Firth:

Perhaps the Minister could tell us if he has given the department any specific direction to change the process?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

No, I have not, but I would expect the issue to come up very shortly in briefings with the department.

Mrs. Firth:

Could I ask the Minister, then, to give his department some direction to that effect? Really, all my constituent is looking for is that there is some assurance that it will not happen again to other people. It is quite appropriate that the Minister indicate to the department, and should have indicated to my constituent, that it was not their intention to put people in this situation and that he would be doing something about it now.

Will he call his department and ask them to proceed with that, so that we are changing the process and not putting parents in this kind of conflict position?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Of course. As I say, with respect to the actual final action being taken, it will be coming up shortly in a briefing with the department.

Question re: Bureau of Management Improvement

Mrs. Firth:

I want to follow up with a related issue to the Government Leader. I would like to ask him some questions about the government's Bureau of Management Improvement. This is the bureau where people get to make suggestions to the government for service improvement - about changing government policies and government processes, methods or systems.

When I asked the Government Leader questions over a week ago now about this particular area, he also used this line that the departments or the Bureau of Management would give consideration to suggestions. Can the Minister stand up today and tell us

Page Number 2520

exactly what that means?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As I said to the Member the last time I rose to answer this question, all suggestions will be reviewed, given consideration and responded to.

Mrs. Firth:

At the time I asked the question, the Government Leader could not tell me whether the suggestions had been responded to. There was a news announcement that there were over 60 now under active consideration. I am just trying to establish what the government does when they get all these suggestions. Obviously, a suggestion that was received by the Minister of Justice was replied to saying that it was being considered. The Government Leader is now standing up saying "we consider these things". I am looking for a more definitive commitment - that the government is actually going to do something with these suggestions.

The Government Leader said that of the 60 suggestions that had been received, two had been rejected and 58 were under consideration. What does that mean? Have letters been written? Is anybody looking at them? What does "under consideration" mean?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will try to get more information for the Member, but the briefing note says that 58 suggestions are under active consideration. One has been referred to another source because it falls outside the scope of the program, and two have been declined, because they did not fall within the terms of reference of the plan.

I will get more information for the Member if I can.

Mrs. Firth:

We discussed this issue over a week ago and I have received no further information from the Minister.

The government has spent a considerable amount of money on this whole program, close to half a million, approximately $400,000, on the Bureau of Management Improvement. This is the elusive suggestion box idea and I am trying to follow up on the idea and get some substantive answers.

According to this brochure, "active consideration" means that people are supposed to receive letters. Can the Minister tell us if the people who made the two suggestions that were rejected received a letter stating so. Also, have the 58 suggestions that are under consideration been responded to by the Government Leader as they are supposed to be, according to this piece of government propaganda?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member is returning to her old ways of making statements that have all kinds of meanings. When she states that a half a million dollars is being spent on this specific program, she knows that amount is not correct. She knows that the budget for the whole Bureau of Management Improvement totals that amount; the amount is not solely for one specific program. I will get back to the Member on that.

Question re: Land claims, approval of Parliament

Ms. Commodore:

My question is for the Minister responsible for land claims. The Government Leader had stated that he had written letters to all parties in the House of Commons urging them to support the passage of land claims and self-government legislation. Other than these letters, what else is this government doing to lobby the federal government? What plan does the government have in place to continue lobbying on behalf of this government and First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As I told the Member yesterday, we also sent to Ottawa the motion that was passed by this Legislature.

The Member is asking what else this government has done? Does the Member wish us to go and camp on the doorstep in Ottawa? It was my understanding that the legislation was pulled yesterday. We cannot be camped in Ottawa forever. I offered my assistance and the assistance of our government to any of the leaders in Ottawa who required more information on the land claims.

Ms. Commodore:

I do not think it is anything to get upset about. My God, this is probably the most important piece of legislation that will affect the Yukon.

The Government Leader has indicated that this legislation has been pulled. It is my understanding that the legislation is being put over for a few days. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not, since it is an important piece of legislation, he has been in contact with his federal counterparts in regard to the legislation, and if he knows when it is going to be introduced in Parliament. He has just indicated that the legislation was pulled.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The information we received yesterday - which I believe was reported on the radio this morning - is that it was pulled back. I have not been in touch with the Minister directly today. I am sure the Member opposite has the information that they are still committed to entering it during this session of Parliament.

Ms. Commodore:

I would expect that this Government Leader, who is in charge of land claims, would make every effort to continue any correspondence or discussion in regard to this legislation. He does not appear to care that much. He thinks it is a big joke.

Would the Minister table any correspondence that he has sent, urging all parties of the House of Commons to support the quick passage of this legislation? Could he table that, including the letter that accompanied the motion that was debated in this House last week?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe it was the Speaker who sent the motion to Ottawa. I have no problem tabling the letters I wrote.

Question re: Whitehorse waterfront

Ms. Commodore:

There appears to be some confusion about Kwanlin Dun's selected lands on the Whitehorse waterfront. The Government Leader said he had seen the map, so he knows the area between the 20-20 property and the YTG building is in a selected area.

For the benefit of Kwanlin Dun, could he tell us if he recognizes it as an area selected by the Kwanlin Dun?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The land selections are being dealt with in a confidential manner, and they will be dealt with at the land claims table.

Ms. Commodore:

Hogwash. I cannot believe it. The maps are public. The Minister has indicated that he has seen them. I am trying to find out whether or not he recognizes that there is a legitimate claim by Kwanlin Dun to that area. He is making all kinds of decisions about what he is going to do with it.

I, the Kwanlin Dun, and other Yukoners would like to know whether or not he recognizes that there is a legitimate claim to that specific area between the 20-20 property and this building.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I beg to differ with the Member opposite; the maps are not public.

Ms. Commodore:

So, I can only assume that he is denying that there is an area that has been selected by Kwanlin Dun, because it is included in that area. I would like to ask him, because he has never, ever, said this, has he given his negotiators the mandate to negotiate that specific area between the 20-20 property and this building?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have stated time and time again in the House that our negotiators have a mandate to negotiate land selections within the City of Whitehorse.

Question re: Whitehorse Correctional Centre, security

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions for the Minister in charge of jailbreaks, the Minister of Justice. Last week, I put some facts

Page Number 2521

to the Minister about the March 18 jailbreak, and he indicated to one of the news media that he thought I was exaggerating. The facts that I put to him were that there was a surveillance camera broken, there was no guard present in the compound when the jailbreak took place and that there was a picnic table used. Now, which of these facts were exaggerated, in the Minister's view?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

The allegation was that there was a picnic table adjacent to the fence and it was simply a matter of hopping over the fence by climbing on the picnic table. That was the exaggeration.

Mr. Cable:

There seems to be some confusion as to what is going on up at the jail. The press reported that the Minister indicated the surveillance camera had not been fixed because the budget kicked in on April 1, and this would provide the funds, assumedly, for the repairs. Yet, it is my information that the surveillance camera was, in fact, fixed on March 25. Is my information incorrect?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

No, the information that the Member has is not incorrect. The press did make certain interpretations of what I said to them and that leads to the discrepancy.

Mr. Cable:

I was reading an old Whitehorse Star from Wednesday, April 13, 1988. It reads as follows: "But Phelps and other Tory MLAs continue to call for a public inquiry..." What is the Minister doing with respect to this audit that is taking place? Is it an internal or external audit?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It is an internal audit.

Question re: Animal protection legislation

Mr. Penikett:

I have been dying to ask the following question for weeks now. Since the Minister of Renewable Resources is in such a good mood, I am determined that it must be asked today.

Despite the efforts over many years by the Humane Society and its volunteers to encourage government to prepare new animal protection legislation, the Minister has recently decided to abandon those efforts and not proceed with badly needed legislation. Can the Minister explain to the House why he has taken the view that new legislation to protect animals is not necessary?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

It is a result of advice given to me that the laws we now have, including the federal laws, are sufficient for the present time. However, it has been suggested that we conduct a public awareness program. We have signed an agreement with the Humane Society to provide them with some money for a public awareness campaign regarding dogs.

Mr. Penikett:

It is too bad they did not get the money for an animal shelter.

According to a representative of the Humane Society, the RCMP routinely refuse to take any action under the animal protection legislation. Officials in the Department of Renewable Resources are apparently asking the Department of Justice to figure out how the current legislation can be enforced. I want to ask the Minister if it is the view of the department that the RCMP will now enforce the existing Animal Protection Act, both inside and outside the municipality of Whitehorse? Is that the advice he is getting from the department?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

The advice is that if there is a complaint under federal law, it will be enforced.

Mr. Penikett:

Recently, our office has been receiving complaints about animals suffering, and suffering because of an enforcement vacuum. Could the Minister tell us exactly what interim enforcement measures the Minister's department, or any other agency, is providing while Justice is examining the question of the application of the present law? Can he also tell us when the Justice department will be finishing its review.

Hon. Mr. Brewster:

That is about four questions, and the Speaker does not want me to be up here that long, but I will explain. I am gathering, from the drift of that conversation, that he is talking about a particular case. The young lady phoned me, and I immediately phoned the department. They called her, and at the same time she called the RCMP, who went down and questioned the people concerned in the matter. The RCMP said they could find absolutely no evidence of cruelty toward the animals.

Question re: Yukon Energy Corporation, privatization of

Mr. Penikett:

Let me change directions, and ask a question of the Minister for Yukon Electrical. When the government was...

Speaker:

Order please. Would the Member refer to the Minister responsible for Yukon energy as the Minister for Yukon energy, as we do not have a Minister of Yukon Electrical that I am aware of.

Mr. Penikett:

Mr. Speaker, you should understand that some of us are not clear on that point. Anyway, let me ask the question of the same Minister. When the government was sworn in, it vowed to eliminate the Yukon Development Corporation, until it discovered that doing so would be a violation of the First Nation's final agreement. Recently, the Minister has acknowledged that last June 29, he met with the chair, and other board members of Yukon Electrical Company, where, and I quote his legislative return, "Mr. Southern raised the concept of a single utility owned one-third by Yukon Electrical, one-third by the territorial government, and one-third by First Nations." Can the Minister confirm to the House that it was Mr. Southern, and not somebody else who suggested this three-way split?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

A fellow could spend a lot of time on the premises that have just come forward from the Member opposite. He is confused about a lot of things, not just the name of the particular utility under consideration. He is confused, among other things, about this vowing to get rid of Yukon Energy Corporation, because that has certainly never been the position taken by this Minister, and Yukon Development Corporation is a separate entity from Yukon Energy Corporation, and he is confused about that. That is not so astonishing to me, given the way in which he so freely squandered the profit of Yukon Energy Corporation on assets acquired by the then leader of that socialistically driven corporation, Yukon Development Corporation. I am thinking, of course, of such things as the Watson Lake sawmill, the chipper that they bought, the investments in Totem Oil...

Speaker:

Order. Would the Minister please answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

...and other interesting investments on behalf of the people of the Yukon. Of course I will answer the question. I will simply conclude by saying that it is unfortunate that the good Member opposite is so confused.

Mr. Penikett:

I gather from the way the Minister answered the question that he did not like it, and I congratulate him on contributing further to the confusion that everybody has in this House.

In referring to the June 29 meeting, I want to make clear that this took place months after the Minister sold his shares in the company, so I am not pursuing a conflict-of-interest question here. I just want to ask him a question of fact - and perhaps he could try it.

As the Minister legally responsible for the public interest in the territory's publicly owned utility, could the Minister tell us how he responded at the June 29 meeting to the proposal from Mr. Southern to split the assets of Yukon Energy Corporation three ways: one-third for Mr. Southern, one-third for First Nations and one-third for Yukon government?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

It seems to be gentleman's day in the

Page Number 2522

Legislature of the Yukon Territory. I am glad he is not making certain allegations and I want to make it very clear that I am not, at this time, of course, alleging that the good Member opposite deliberately misspent money and wasted ratepayers' money on such ridiculous investments as the Watson Lake sawmill and chippers, and investing in Totem Oil, and that sort of thing. I certainly want it made very clear in this House that I am not making an allegation that this was deliberate - it was really negligence - because of very poor judgment and mismanagement on the part of the Member opposite. I want to make that clear, as well.

With the greatest of respect to the questioner and his question, there was a proposal in general conversation made to me by the chair of Canadian Utilities, which owns, I understand -

Speaker:

Order. Would the Member please answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

I took it as a thinking-out-loud kind of proposal, which I later discussed with some of my Cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Penikett:

The answer of the Member opposite has provided fuel for dozens' more questions, but in respect of the one-third/one-third/one-third deal, which is quite different from the previous proposal from Canadian Utilities to take over the Energy Corporation, which was a 50/50 proposal, assuming no value for the hydro assets of the Energy Corporation, I want to ask the Minister about the meeting he subsequently had with Yukon First Nations in January of this year, at which he explored the prospect of Yukon First Nations buying up to 30 percent of the Energy Corporation assets. Could the Minister tell us who initiated that proposal? Was it the First Nations or was it the Minister? Since the Government Leader has told us that YTG has no mandate in these negotiations, was the Minister just conveying a message on behalf of Mr. Southern for the one-third ownership?

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

Well, that is rather a ridiculous question. I would take it, in trying to raise the spectre of various ogres into the minds of Yukoners, that these kinds of tactics are considered to be ethical by the poser of the question. I guess the concern I have - and I am not going to phrase it as a question, because I guess that is improper, at least it would be in the minds of the questioner and the minds of some of his lackeys over there, the noisemakers at the back - and what I really wonder is if in his government it was verboten for any Minister to talk to people...

Speaker:

Order. Would the Minister please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Phelps:

...and to explore ideas related to their portfolio, in order to think up some issues that might be brought forward to Cabinet so that the government would have innovative policies from time to time. Apparently, aside from the Watson Lake sawmill -

Speaker:

Order. Would the Minister please conclude his answer now.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Speaker:

The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I am disappointed; he was just getting to his point.

I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the wish of the Members to take a brief recess at this time?

Recess

Chair:

I will now call the Committee of the Whole to order.

Bill No. 15 - Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95 - continued

Department of Economic Development

- continued

Chair:

Is there any further general debate?

Mr. McDonald:

I do have some follow-up questions from yesterday that I would like to pursue with the Minister. First of all, we left discussions on interprovincial trade negotiations when the time signalled the end of the day. I had left the Minister with a couple of questions. I would like to re-pose a question, to refresh his memory, then ask a couple of questions that were left hanging yesterday, but which are worth getting into the record.

What criteria is the Government of the Yukon using to present a case for special consideration with other Ministers in negotiations on trade barriers within Canada? Particularly, the Minister had mentioned there was some concern that because we had a high unemployment rate and were relatively isolated we should be seeking some special consideration to ensure we are not subject to any competitive disadvantage when it came time to determining trade arrangements. Given that we are obviously not unique in this country in having a high unemployment rate or being relatively isolated, I wanted to know more about the government's position on that point.

I would also like to know - and the Minister does not have to verbally give me this information now - how many working-level negotiating meetings have taken place and how often the Yukon had a representative at those meetings.

I would also like to have more details - and this can also come in the form of a return or letter - about the consultation surrounding interprovincial trade that the department has had with stakeholders.

There are two questions that I would like the Minister to respond to, if the Minister agrees now, in the form of a legislative return.

There is one question that I would like the Minister to speak to now, and that is the criteria that he is using to seek a special case at the interprovincial trade talks.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We will get back to the Member in the form of a letter or something with answers to those two questions.

I will now speak about our government's position on internal trade and what we are seeking.

Before I do that, I think it would be useful, for the record, to go back in the history of the internal trade negotiations. I think it is very important to set the stage of how we arrived at where we are now.

As the Member opposite stated yesterday, the Yukon had formally committed to two existing agreements. One of those agreements is the intergovernmental agreement on government procurement and the other is on beer marketing, an agreement that does not affect the Yukon very much.

In the first agreement, both the Yukon and Northwest Territories obtained exemptions under the agreement to allow both jurisdictions to carry out preferential purchasing policies; as long as we were up front about doing so and not trying to hide them,

Page Number 2523

and they were transparent, the provinces were prepared to accept that agreement.

The other agreement did not cause us too much concern. The agreement commits governments to listing and pricing beer products regardless of where in Canada the beer was made. As we do not have any breweries, that agreement did not really have any significant effect on us.

It is my understanding that both of these agreements will die when the new agreement comes into place. There are early discussions underway with all jurisdictions in a variety of areas, such as procurement of construction, government procurement of services and extensions of these open procurement practices to Crown corporations. There has been no clear indication of a commitment from governments and progress has been sluggish.

In March, 1992, the former Government Leader, now Leader of the Official Opposition, represented the Yukon at a meeting. It was at that meeting that the First Ministers instructed Ministers of Internal Trade to pursue the removal of barriers within Canada for the free movement of goods and services, labour and capital within Canada. They set a target date of June 30, 1995. Since March 1992, the committee of Ministers of Internal Trade has met, pursuing the development of a comprehensive agreement policy.

Following that, the Premiers met last year. They wanted to fast-track that a bit. In order that everything could take place on June 30, 1995 - the legislation would be all in place in all the jurisdictions - they advanced the target date for an agreement to June 30, 1994. That is the stage at which we now are.

The agreement is very complex. It is very similar to the free trade agreement. It is a huge agreement, with 11 chapters. It is very thick and covers almost every area one can think of. The specific sectors referred to procurement, investment, labour mobility, consumer-related measures and standards, agricultural and food products, alcoholic beverages, natural resource processing, energy, communications, transportation and environmental protection. The purpose of the comprehensive agreement is to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, barriers to the free movement of goods and services, persons and capital within Canada, and to promote a more open, efficient and stable internal market for long-term job creation, economic growth and stability.

But I want to make it very clear that, from the onset of the negotiations of this agreement, all parties agreed to recognize the need for exceptions and transition periods, as well as special needs consistent with regional development objectives in Canada.

Those are the areas in which we are trying to get some exemptions. That has been recognized by all jurisdictions. The Member is quite right. At times our unemployment is no worse than Newfoundland's or other places, but these exceptions could, in the final document, be an exemption open to all parties under certain conditions, or they may be an exemption for a specific clause in a specific chapter of the agreement.

Our objective is to be able to obtain some flexibility. The argument that both we and the Northwest Territories are making is that we have a fledgling economy up here and we need to give it some sort of protection. As I said, the exemptions could be a variety of options. They could be exemptions to clauses that could be built into the general provisions applying to the whole comprehensive agreement, or it could be a specific sector. For example, under the procurement chapter there could be a clause allowing governments to erect purchasing barriers for economic and regional purposes. That is one of the areas being explored.

It is not only the Yukon seeking this; there are others, as well. In some provinces, there is a certain industry they want to protect, so they are still looking for some exemptions or transition periods that would give them a longer time period, such as in the free trade agreement, to implement them. That is basically what we are looking for in this, as well. Exemptions could apply to lesser-developed provinces and territories, which would allow them to develop economies by not removing the barriers as completely as would the more developed provinces. So that is another way it could develop, depending on what the final outcome is. Exemptions could be permanent or they could have a sunset clause, or they could be exemptions that are reviewed every one or two years, or something like that.

As for the north, specifically, the concept we would be looking at, is being a less-developed economic area, regional area. As I said yesterday, one of the figures that could be used could be unemployment compared to the national average. We could use population size and a distribution of that population, and maybe an index reflecting the distances to significant market populations. There is a wide variety of areas that can be explored, such as diversity of the region's economic base or even simply being north of the 60th parallel or some other latitude of northerness.

What we are looking for is to be able to have some sort of relief, if at all possible, and other jurisdictions are looking for this as well. A specific example that comes to mind, and which I could relate to the Member opposite, is our business incentive policy. Without an exemption of some kind, it probably would not be allowed. Under it, we are interfering with the free movement of people. A contractor working in the Yukon gets a special benefit for hiring a Yukoner rather than hiring somebody from B.C. or Alberta. It may be frowned upon.

Those are the kind of areas we are looking for. We are not looking for significant protection, because we do believe in free trade - this party does - and we believe that it is healthy. We believe it will be healthy for our businesses in the long run, but in the meantime we would like to have some sort of lever to use. I know the Northwest Territories feels the same way, and between us we have received the support of the western Premiers to explore having that kind of an exemption being put into the agreement, and we are going to continue to pursue that.

Mr. McDonald:

I thank the Minister for the beginning of an answer. Ultimately, we will not know what the final agreement looks like until it is signed. Did the Minister say they were looking at June as a target date for signing the final agreement? The Minister is nodding in the affirmative.

I realize the agreement is large, but it should not be too large to make sure that copies are sent around - with one to me, in particular. Once the agreement is signed, I would like to ask for a copy of it and I would also like to ask the Minister to note in the copy, or in some form or other, what exemptions might apply to Yukon's unique circumstances that might help control trade to the benefit of local business and to our government.

The general issue I am trying to address here is the issue of whether or not we have a clear reading from the various sectoral interests about their support for a particular clause. This is obviously a much more comprehensive agreement than the intergovernmental agreement on government procurement, or even the one on brewing, and consequently the impact on the various industries in the territory could be quite significant. I do know that when we talked about deregulating the transportation environment there was, by necessity, a great deal of discussion with the transportation industry, and we are still trying to fine tune those agreements and various governments' commitments to those agreements.

Perhaps the Minister could communicate to us how the government has been able to get a clear reading from the various industry sectors, to the extent that they can support the government's negotiating position with respect to the exemptions and the transition periods that the Minister was referring to that would help benefit a fledging industry in the north.

Page Number 2524

I am a little surprised that the business incentive policy might not be allowed without an exemption. It not being a bid preference policy suggests to me that it would not necessarily restrict trade between jurisdictions. It would be applicable to anybody who did business in the territory, and anybody who did business could include any Canadian in the country.

Can the Minister tell us two things. First of all, what kind of clear direction have they received from the various industrial sectors that would give them the confidence that their negotiating position was solid, and had the support of Yukon industry? Secondly, could he tell us what it is about the principles underlying this trade agreement that would, without an exemption, prevent something like the business incentive policy from continuing.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

On the first question, our goal is to be able to retain some flexibility in the program. We have not met specifically with any of the sectors. For the most part, this whole package is going to have very little effect on people in the Yukon, because we do not have an industry base here at this time. That is why we want to keep that flexibility so that, if we ever get one, we may be able to utilize that somehow.

Where I see the business incentive policy applying is in the free movement of persons, and that is where this applies. It is not only goods, or contracts, but also people. If we are going to take a situation where we have two people applying for a job with a contractor in the Yukon, where one is from outside the Yukon and one is from inside the Yukon, if the one from inside the Yukon is hired by that contractor, the contractor will receive a financial benefit for it. If he hires the person from outside the Yukon, there will be no financial benefit for it. That could be perceived to be an unfair playing field. We have some concerns about that, and we want to clarify them. That is what I am talking about in regards to the business incentive policy, because that policy is there to encourage contractors to hire Yukoners.

Mr. McDonald:

Perhaps I do not understand all the philosophical underpinnings of the new trading arrangements, or the newly proposed interprovincial agreement. I will read the relevant sections when the Minister provides me with a copy.

The Minister of Government Services sent us a letter last August, which indicated that the government, in this particular case, would continue to "buy furniture locally, invite bids from local manufacturers and encourage departments to buy from local manufacturers, wherever possible." That is a quote.

The letter goes on to say that the policy is currently being reviewed in conjunction with other opportunities for economic development. In the Minister's view, is there anything on the horizon, in the context of the new interprovincial agreement on trade, that would prevent the government from pursuing this very activity?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is exactly why we are trying to get an exemption, because we could see something like that happening, which would not be allowed. If you are talking about a totally free movement of goods and services, and government contracts, such as I spoke about yesterday, using the information highway, and the federal government and provinces want to put all of their procurements on that electronic highway so that every jurisdiction and business in Canada would have a chance to bid, and that would conceivably be seen as an unfair trade practice. Those are the kinds of areas that we would like to see flexibility in.

Mr. McDonald:

We will leave that subject for now; we have exhausted some of the main elements of that topic.

I would like to follow up on a question that I put to the Minister yesterday about the various policy documents that the Minister says are still active documents, such as the Yukon Party's four-year plan, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century, dated December 1992, and also a document entitled Yukon Resource Infrastructure Initiative, dated April 16, 1993.

I asked the Minister whether or not we could receive an update on these documents, because I was concerned that there were some elements of these documents that were out of date, and we do not know what is or is not an operative element.

To illustrate the point that I am trying to make here, the Yukon Party's four-year plan includes some commitments to develop a bid preference policy on government contracts, and of course the Minister has indicated that is no longer operative. The plan reiterates the principle that the low bidder will be awarded government contracts. We heard the previous Minister talk about how outside contractors might face a decision by Cabinet to have their bid bypassed, depending upon local economic circumstances.

There is a commitment to split government contracts wherever possible to encourage business for Yukon contractors. In some cases, that is happening, but in some other cases, notably highways, there are still some very, very large contracts going to tender.

There is a commitment to ensure that the public sector has more access to funds such as the economic development agreement. From discussions in the past, it is my impression that Ministers were not particularly happy about the public sector dominating or extracting more than their fair share of funds from programs such as the economic development agreement and the community development fund.

We have the government implementing a decentralization program, which is all part of the economic plan. We know that the decentralization program is not on the front burner right now.

There is another whole series of proposals to build various projects, such as the introduction of a tourist train in Carcross, a historic character museum, Nahanni Range road upgrading, and other projects that may or may not happen. Certainly, within the four-year time line, it is highly unlikely that these projects will be completed, in particular the upgrading of the Nahanni Range road.

In the Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century document there are a number of commitments such as expanding the resource transportation access program, which figures prominently. Of course, that program has expired.

We have programs to upgrade the highway, to accommodate larger loads from the mining sectors in Dawson and in the Faro district. That, of course, is not part of the capital plan. Enhancing the Yukon mining incentive program has not happened. The YMIP still exists, of course, but it is not being enhanced. I am talking about the short-term and medium-term requirements here - primarily short-term requirements. There are a whole series of commitments here, particularly to undertake expansions of the resource transportation access program and the Yukon mining incentive program, which are not operative. The same is true for many of the provisions in the document entitled A Yukon Resource Infrastructure Initiative.

So, the point I am making is that clearly some of these are outdated. One might be inclined to get sidetracked and question the government's plan of action in a particular area, only to find out that the initiative is no longer operative, in effect or considered appropriate. Consequently, we are left with too many signals that we have to interpret that send out conflicting messages. Is it the plan of the government to pull together a current strategy that we can use as the economic development bible for the government, that we can turn to whenever we are trying to anticipate the government's direction?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will make a few comments. Out of all the points that were listed by the Member opposite, the only one that I can really say, off the top of my head, is not being pursued is the preferential bid policy. The rest are all being pursued in some form or another. I would be quite happy to provide the Member

Page Number 2525

with an update of the four-year plan. I believe that about 60 of the points that were in it are either being implemented or are in the process of being implemented. The Member opposite talks about the resource transportation access program being dead, but it has been replaced with the Yukon industrial support policy. So, it is not dead; there is another policy replacing it. As far as topping up the other program, the reality of the finances of government has to be taken into consideration. It does not mean that we do not, at some point, intend to do it.

Both the four-year plan and the document, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century, are policy statements about this government's philosophical belief in infrastructure development for self-sufficiency. I believe that, clearly, that is the direction in which we are going.

The Member also made comments about splitting government contracts. We can only split government contracts so far, until they become inefficient. An example is highway contracts. It is very difficult to split them much smaller and still be able to have cost-effective tendering for the projects. I believe the Member said something about the economic development program being prioritized for the public sector, but I believe that is for the private sector. I have a great deal of difficulty with departments topping up their budgets out of the economic development agreements. It is a pet peeve of mine. We want to see more money out there creating jobs in the private sector, rather than departments using it to top up their budgets.

We are working on most of those issues. The document, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century, was put together shortly after we took office. It was created to try and get some money from Ottawa for infrastructure development, and we were successful in that effort. We got the strategic highway plan, including the $20 million program, which is cost shared equally with the federal government. It is in its second year now. The other areas that are addressed in the document are long-term projects. Some of them are not being actively pursued at this time, but that does not mean that we no longer believe that that is the direction to go with infrastructure development, such as the one the Member likes to mention every now and then: the railroad to Carmacks. I do not believe that it is a pipe dream. I believe there could some day be a railroad to Carmacks. If there are several mines operating in that area, it may be justifiable to put a railroad in to Carmacks. It would reduce the wear and tear on our highways. At some point, it could become cost effective.

The point I am trying to make is that I believe that those documents still address the direction this government is going. There has been no fundamental change of direction. We are still a government that believes that it is a government's responsibility to provide infrastructure so that the private sector can thrive in the Yukon, our economy can diversify, there will be more private sector jobs in the territory and we will all be less dependent on government.

Mr. McDonald:

I do not want to get into a long debate about this, but I will just point out that there are a number of programs here that simply no longer exist. There is the RTAP program, which is an industry-driven program, not a government-driven program, to seek funding to undertake projects that would help various sectors and various individual businesses. The infrastructure support program that the government has announced, for which we are now in the second year, based on the information the Minister responsible for highways has given us, is a program that has already dedicated funds to upgrade existing highways.

There are two different kinds of infrastructure development being undertaken through those two programs.

In the document, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century, and the resource infrastructure initiative document, a lot of time is spent talking about wanting to upgrade existing highways to handle heavier loads. Surfacing the Top of the World Highway does not rank high in that category. Spending a large portion of the money on upgrading the Alaska Highways does not, either.

We are talking about different things here, and that is why I am interested in seeing an updated version of this.

The Minister talked briefly about splitting contracts and that, at some point, splitting contracts into portions that are too small makes it not cost effective - in his words - to ensure you are getting the best value for your money, I guess. The whole issue here is what is cost effective and what is not.

If one were to tender all the Alaska Highway projects into $15 million contracts, I am sure you would get even better economies of scale for the owner. If you were to tender them into $1 million contracts, you would get a lot less value for your dollar for the owner, but you might get a greater chance that the smaller contractor, or the community contractor, would be bidding.

It boils down to what is cost effective, and that is a debate that, I am sure, will always continue in this Legislature. Surprisingly enough, the Yukon Party is not the first government to come along and say they want to split contracts into small chunks, digestible by community contractors.

With respect to the dedication of funding toward the public sector from the economic development agreement, I would invite the Minister to have a look at the document he tabled yesterday, which talks about putting major money into government-sponsored projects, even money I will ask about later, which I believed, even up to last year, were clearly the responsibility of the Government of Canada.

I am not sure whether the public sector is entirely taking over the economic development agreements, but it certainly seems to be going in that direction. I believe the Minister has indicated that he would be prepared to give us an update. Can he tell us when we can expect an update on their basic infrastructure document - their economic plan? While he is taking the time to answer, can he also indicate whether or not there is going to be any public discussion, or whether they are going to sponsor any public discussion around the document to see if they can fine tune it and make it better.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that we have had quite a bit of public discussion already. There have been several major initiatives undertaken by this government. The Minister responsible for Yukon Housing went around the Yukon to discuss housing; the Tourism Minister held a tourism summit. I visited every community in the Yukon over this past winter looking for input. We have had quite a bit of discussion with the general public. The Council on the Economy and the Environment has indicated that it is going to be doing a sector-by-sector review of the economy of the Yukon and giving us some input from that direction. I believe that we are providing ample opportunity for public involvement. My people were starting to work on an update this morning, and I should have it ready for the critic in a day or two. I would hope that I could table it Thursday or Monday.

Regarding the resource transportation access program, I differ with the Minister about that when he talks about the strategic highway policy. We have the Yukon industrial support policy, which does not necessarily mean just upgrading existing roads. It is to help mines wherever the help is needed. There could conceivably be new roads built under the policy. We felt that we were not getting a good bang for our dollar with the RTAP money. That was why we cancelled that program. The Yukon industrial support policy will go a long way toward satisfying the needs of the mining community in that respect. Regarding the economic development agreement - I do not want to sound like I am copping out on this - but I have just taken over the Economic Development portfolio,

Page Number 2526

and there is a lot of money being given out with which I am not in agreement. The Member opposite has to remember that there is a board that allocates that money, and unless we can change the terms of reference regarding how it is allocated, we cannot address it. These programs are all under review. They are all being analyzed at this time, and we hope that we can make some changes to make them better programs. We would like to be able to have more money out there working for the private sector.

Mr. McDonald:

I will just point out to the Minister the difference between a policy and a program. A program generally has money attached to it, and that is a reflection of the person's financial commitment to carry out the particular policy. No matter how confused we might think the government's infrastructure documents were, we could not possibly mistake the government's desire to support, in policy at least, the infrastructural requirements of various mining initiatives. There is no doubt in my mind that the government wanted to support that. The question then arose last year, though, whether or not there was truly a financial commitment being made to it, because the only vehicle they had at their disposal - the RTAP, which they also made reference to in their four-year plan and in the infrastructure document, in terms of wanting to expand the program - was cut.

In the budgets right now, there is no specific dollar amount that has been dedicated to any of the projects that the government has listed in its toward self-sufficiency program. The only hint or smell we have had so far that there may be some vote in the future is the reference to the Loki road that the Minister mentioned might be funded out of the money the Legislature had wanted to spend on Grey Mountain Primary school. That is the only whiff we have had yet.

Several people have spoken to me in recent times about the desirability of having a program they could go to that would allow for their small industry project to be considered for funding. To wait the couple of years to have it inserted as a line item in the budget is something they felt was overly bureaucratic.

I was just expecting that if there were concerns about the RTAP program there would be a replacement program, something that would make it even more efficient in some way.

In terms of the public discussion, I would like to have a discussion about that in a few moments, particularly with respect to the mandate that YCEE has been given. There are not many people out there on the street who feel that we have been over consulted on the state of the general economy. Some people, particularly in very specific industry sectors, such as in housing and in tourism, feel that there is at last an outlet for discussion at the working level for people to consider how those very specific sectors might be promoted. Nobody feels that the Minister's rural community tour or the fact that they have an open-door policy is a sufficient outlet for people to have working meetings about the economy and about the other sectors of the economy that are important to them, or even to have an opportunity to talk about how the sectors might mesh one with another and produce opportunities that may be invisible in a discussion about a particular sector's development.

I would like to talk about that in a few minutes.

The Minister said that he would have an update on the document, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century. Is the update that he is proposing to present an update of the Yukon Party's four-year plan, the resource infrastructure initiative, or the self-sufficiency document? Which of those documents will be updated, or will it be a roll-up of both of them into the new master plan?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I can give the Member opposite an update on both documents. I have no difficulty doing so. Those documents have been forwarded to the Council on the Economy and the Environment and they will be used in consultation on the sector review of the economy in the Yukon.

Mr. McDonald:

When the Minister says that he is going to provide an update on the two documents, I want to clarify that he is talking about the resource infrastructure initiative and the self-sufficiency document, not the four-year plan.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. McDonald:

Does it include the four-year plan?

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. McDonald:

I also want an update on the four-year plan, but I do not want the Minister to be saying that the Department of Economic Development is going to be providing that update. I would like to hear the Minister say that the Yukon Party is going to respond to that update.

Could the Minister be more specific about what he will be delivering to us?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have no difficulty in providing the Member with an update on all of them. I can have our political staff provide the Member with an update of the four-year plan.

I can tell the Member that we are implementing the four-year plan and that the departments are using the four-year plan in all of the legislation that comes forward. Decisions being made are in conjunction with the four-year plan.

I do not know what all of the fuss is about over a plan. Their counterparts in British Columbia have come out with an infrastructure plan for self-sufficiency and economic diversification in British Columbia for the 21st century.

Let me quote from this document, "BC 21 is a long-term, forward-looking strategy. It is pivotal on building a prosperous and diversified economy by investing in the people and the infrastructure and at the same time creating new jobs."

We were one of the first parties to come out with a plan and then the Liberals decided they should have one. Now the NDP is starting to see the merit in having a plan and they are coming out with them.

Mr. McDonald:

First of all, the idea of economic planning did not originate with the Yukon Party. Even a booster like the Government Leader himself could not possibly suggest that he pioneered the concept of economic planning. I am certain he is aware of the Yukon Economic Strategy, which is a comprehensive document as well. He perhaps does not like it, but it certainly was a plan. He will be aware of the City of Whitehorse's economic strategy, too, which was also made public. I think it was called the 20/20 document. It involved probably a lot more public consultation even than the Yukon Party's plan. Nevertheless, I am not taking any direct shots, even though I have been prone to in the past and will again, about the Yukon Party's four-year plan. I am just asking a very specific question as to what the Minister is going to be providing to us in terms of the two documents, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century, and the Yukon Resource Infrastructure Initiative. Are we going to be getting updates on both of these two documents, and when?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The department has not done an update on those two documents, but we will get an update for the Member opposite. I have no difficulty with that and I will also see that he gets an update on the four-year plan.

Mr. McDonald:

Wonderful. I am presuming that the time lines that the Minister has given before are still operative. Could we expect it on Monday? I am not insisting that it be on Monday; I do not want to give anyone a heart attack here. I am just asking when he can do it and when he can do a thorough and competent job of it.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The only commitment I can make to the Member opposite is that I will try to have it for him by Monday. I cannot say right now on my feet that I can get it to him by Monday.

Page Number 2527

Mr. McDonald:

I will reserve my question for Question Period on Tuesday.

I know this will be of interest to the Member for Riverside. I would like to pursue the mandate that has been given to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. We were under the distinct impression at some point, some 18 months ago, that the Council on the Economy and the Environment would be asked to do a review of the first document, Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century. In checking Hansard yesterday, I discovered that they would be not only reviewing that document, but also undertaking some public consultation around that document last year.

Obviously, that has not been done. Can the Minister tell us precisely what the marching orders to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment have been, and specifically what he expects of them now - not what they have promoted to him, but what he expects of them?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As the Member opposite is aware, the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment is an advisory body to Cabinet. I asked them to do an economic review and take into consideration the four-year plan - the Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century document. They have come back and suggested to me that they could do a better job for us by doing it on a sector-by-sector basis. I believe I spoke to that in Question Period or in debate the other day. It seems that whenever we get a group of people together in a one-day meeting, we do not necessarily accomplish what we want. We get a hodge-podge of ideas, from which it is very difficult to obtain a clear direction.

That was one of the concerns of the Council on the Economy and the Environment. They felt that they could do a much better job for us by doing this on a sector-by-sector basis. Their suggestion was that they start with the arts. I am confident that they will be holding public hearings to obtain input from the public. I do not know how else they plan to accomplish that task. From there, they will be making recommendations to Cabinet. They felt that they could do a far better job than by just calling one big council meeting and trying to deal with the issue.

The Member opposite will recall that they called a meeting on the economy. I saw the recommendations that came from that. There was a vast array of recommendations, but nothing specific. The council feels that they would be able to do a much better job, working on a sector-by-sector basis, rather than in one big meeting. I am depending on them for advice, so I have to agree with them.

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister will have to acknowledge that when the Official Opposition conducted a one-day conference it did so with the financial restrictions under which we were placed. We do not have government departments and we do not have budgets that allow for travel or the invitation of guest speakers, or any of the sorts of things that are normally accoutrements of a public consultation process. However, we were responding to a need expressed by many people to discuss the economic future of this territory and, in their terms, to discuss economic revitalization.

I have a couple of direct questions for the Minister. The Minister has indicated that the Council on the Economy and the Environment has decided it would like to have a review of Yukon's economic prospects on a sector-by-sector basis. Has the government agreed to that? Is that now the government's position? Are they going to be asking the council to do a review on a sector-by-sector basis?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes.

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister seemed to suggest that this would involve a comprehensive one-day meeting by the council. Is the Minister suggesting by that that the council is not going to sponsor public discussion, but is simply going to get together for a day and, using their own council, discuss each sector of the economy?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, not at all. I believe their approach to this is to do it in a similar way as was done with the VLT and casino review. They are going to solicit input to start with and, based on that input, decide what the second step will be, be it public meetings, or some other course.

I believe that is the method that was explained to me on the manner in which they hope to conduct it. They will first send out requests to different groups and organizations for input, analyze the input, and then take it from there.

Mr. McDonald:

Has the Minister expressed any concerns about the time it takes for the Council on the Economy and the Environment to report back to the government on the sectors? We can use the casino consultations as a guide. They have actually been dealing with the subject of casinos and video gambling for less than a year, because they only got started last September. The council still has not reported yet. If we were to go through everything on a sector-by-sector basis, we might not get to mining or tourism. Presumably, we might want to get to other sectors of the economy by the year 2000, and a lot of water will pass beneath the bridge between now and then.

Does the Minister have any thoughts about timing here?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I would like to have it in a timely fashion, but I do not think we need it immediately. This is long-term planning, to give this government some long-term direction as to how the people of Yukon feel about certain sectors: how we can diversify our tourism more; how we can diversify our mining more. Those are our two strengths. That is where the efforts are going to be concentrated rather than trying to create something totally new in the economy. We can start from there and build on our strengths rather than take a huge master plan and try to implement it.

While this will take a little more time, I am sure the council will address that situation. They have been very good at breaking down into smaller groups to address issues and only taking two or three of them to a community meeting rather than taking the whole council. I believe they can do this review in a timely fashion as well.

Mr. McDonald:

The concerns expressed to me are that there are both short-term and long-term problems to address. There is a need by a number of business and labour people in the territory to see some discussion about not only government policy but also about the opportunities that may arise from time to time, on which they would like community consensus. Without having a forum to discuss those options - apart from the Minister's rural tours - they are not satisfied that the outlet is sufficient.

Given that the Minister is obviously counting on the Council on the Economy and the Environment to provide for some long-term direction - and we have a reasonably leisurely schedule to come to some conclusions about some of the sectors - what is the government going to be doing here and now? Does he seriously suggest that the community meetings he has had so far are a sufficient replacement for the working sessions that many business and labour people and others have been looking for in the last year or so?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am certainly not getting the feedback that the Member opposite is trying to allude to. We are not getting that kind of feedback at all. I believe we have to look at what we can do over the long term. With the recovery going on in mining right now, our employment figures are getting better. There seems to be a lot of construction going on this summer. With the new mall coming in September, it looks like there will be quite a lot of construction this winter. If there is not, we will be taking measures to see if we can create some more employment, just as we did last winter. What I am looking for from the council is some clear

Page Number 2528

direction as to where government should be focusing over the long term.

As I said to the Member opposite, as a government, we have very few levers that we can use to enhance the economy. We believe that by creating infrastructure, the private sector will create the jobs out there. I do not believe the government can create all of the jobs - I never believed in that philosophy. Nothing has made me change my mind. We are going to continue to spend our money on infrastructure-related projects. With the anniversaries coming up, there will be some opportunities in tourism that will create economic benefits, and I hope that they will be lasting benefits for the Yukon.

I believe that it is important that we concentrate on our strengths and try to do what we can to diversify them so that we are not in a situation like we were in prior to the Faro mine shutting down, where we had only one mine operating, and everything was contingent upon the health of that one company. I would like to see six or seven small mines in the Yukon that employ 100 people each, rather than one big one. One big one is nice, and it would be nice to see it back in operation, but it would also be nice to see another five or six or seven mines out there that are not dependent on the same commodity, so that there is a diversification in the minerals that are being extracted. That way, we have less chance of taking the big hits that happen when all our eggs are in one basket, as it is when we only have the one large private sector employer.

Mr. McDonald:

Given that we have no mines operating right now, I would like to see us start with at least one operating mine. That would show some progress in that particular sector. Mines that are drilling is not something that is new. Miners that are exploring is something that has been going on for years. I think that a sign of true health and recovery in the mining industry, particularly in the hard-rock mining industry, will obviously begin with at least one operating mine. Before we get into the world of five, six, or seven mines, I think that we should be hoping for at least one in the next year or two.

The Minister indicated that he acknowledges government cannot do everything in terms of reviving the economy, and I think that he is precisely right. What the government can do is something that nobody else can do. They can lead by example. This government has a budget of $468 million.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. McDonald:

Four hundred and sixty-eight million, plus $6.5 million.

They also have the ability to bring people together and to use their persuasive powers to draw people together so that they can engage in discussion among the other people in the economy who can be involved in encouraging economic growth.

When I participated in a couple of forums last year about the economy - non-government sponsored forums - a couple of the forums were not sponsored either by the Official Opposition - the people who did come together said very clearly that they were thankful for the opportunity to discuss the economy.

In one particular case - I think the Member for Riverside was in attendance around this time last year - there were certainly some strong feelings by the business people - I guess they are really not talking to the government, but they certainly seem to be familiar faces as owners of businesses in Whitehorse - they felt that an opportunity to discuss the economy of the Yukon was quite valuable. Not only that, they also felt that a cross-sectoral analysis was also something that we should be promoting, and that we should not simply be promoting a sector-by-sector analysis.

I guess we are talking to different people, and obviously, given that we have raised the issue of consultation in the Legislature on numerous occasions in the past and have done everything in our power, as constructive critics, to encourage the government to undertake and sponsor some discussions, and given that there has been a rather severe reluctance to follow our suggestions, I do not know if there is much point in trying to encourage the government to do more, or to do things in a slightly different way.

It is our duty to bring into the Legislature the comments made by people on the streets, and we are doing so. The government can choose to follow the advice or not.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. McDonald:

If the Minister has something to say, I will let him do so and then I will move on to another subject.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have no difficulty with the Member making suggestions from the other side; some of them we take, some of them we do not take. I believe there will be ample opportunity for public input in the review that the Council on the Economy and the Environment is conducting. I believe they have done a very thorough job on the video lottery terminal and casino issues. I think they have done a very thorough job. I am impressed with the manner in which they operate, and I have the utmost confidence in their being able to do the review of the economy on a sectoral basis and bring forward some worthwhile recommendations to this government.

Mr. Cable:

While we are on the topic of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, does the Minister feel there is something, if I could use this term, "slightly oxymoronic" about doing sectoral analyses of the whole economy? One of the terms or references I think the council has been charged with examining is diversification. Can one actually examine diversification on a sectoral basis?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not see a reason why they cannot. I think they can. As I pointed out earlier in the debate, we have two strengths in the economy: mining and tourism. We are seeking to diversify them. When we talk about the arts, that goes in conjunction with tourism, and if they have some suggestions or good ideas on how that can be incorporated into our economic policy, we are certainly prepared to listen to them.

Mr. Cable:

What, in the Government Leader's view, is the purpose of the council examining diversification?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe my view is, and I have stated it many, many times, that we want to see more jobs in the private sector, so that everything is not dependent on government in the territory. If we are going to develop, we have to have a strong and vibrant private sector economy.

Mr. Cable:

Would it be fair to say that it is not diversification, per se, that we are after, but stabilization, or growth, in the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite is quite right. We want to see growth in the private sector. I also believe it is useful to examine how we can diversify so we are not dependent upon just one sector in the private economy, as we were with the Faro mine. I think that is not the proper way to go. When you get a hit, it is a bad one.

In response to all of that, the only thing I can say is that I am happy and impressed to see that our economy did not go right down the tube, like it did in 1982 when that mine closed down. It seems to be more resilient now, and we want to continue to expand upon that so we are not going to take a big hit when one operation goes down.

Mr. Cable:

In weighing diversification thrusts, should we not be weighing the various sectors, one against another, assumedly with a view to determining whether the government should be promoting one or the other, either through its policies or its funding?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that is what the sectoral review will do, that the recommendations from the council will be that

Page Number 2529

more effort should be put toward a certain sector. That is what we will be looking for from the review the council will be doing.

Mr. Cable:

Is it viewed that the council will give the government a report after each sector is reviewed?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not have all the details of that yet, but I would expect to be getting preliminary reports, such as I have with the gambling, and that there will be a final report at some point.

Mr. Cable:

What I am having trouble coming to grips with is, if you are examining on a sectoral basis, you are not really weighing. You are simply looking at little segments, one at a time. At what juncture does the government take all the sectors, meld them together and analyze where it should be putting its main emphasis?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite speaks as if we had many, many sectors. I do not believe we have that many sectors to address. We probably only have four or five. I do not think it is going to take forever for the council to do that, and then put it all together in a comprehensive report.

Mr. Cable:

We have established the arts, mining and tourism. What else do we have?

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Cable:

Agriculture is another good one. The Minister just indicated there are four or five sectors. What sectors does he see?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite has named four of them. I think we could also include forestry, because, at some point in the near future, we hope to take over responsibility for forestry - and the oil and gas sector, which we are now in the process of taking over.

Mr. Cable:

The government, when it originally charged the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, had asked that an economic summit be set up. I gather that, since that time, the Government Leader has had some reservations, passed on from the council, as to whether or not that would work. What was the Government Leader's view originally on why the economic summit should be set up?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will have to look at the circumstances at the time. I believe that it was just after the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment was formed. We, on this side of the House, knew no more than the Members on the other side how the economy was going to survive with the Faro mine being shut down.

I have been pleased that our economy has proven so resilient. There is no doubt that we would like to see 100-percent employment in the Yukon; however, the fact remains that we have survived fairly well through the Faro shutdown. I do not believe that there is a necessity for an immediate economic summit to look for ideas that would be immediately implemented. I would prefer to have a good, thorough review, and get a clear direction as to the way in which this government should go in the next few years.

Mr. Cable:

Is it the Government Leader's view that any diversification is good, or should there be some prioritizing put on any diversification thrust?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe any diversification is good, but areas of diversification may be identified that require some government assistance. That is the kind of information we are seeking in this review.

Mr. McDonald:

I guess the Minister and the government and we have a slightly different view of how the economic planning might take place.

The problem I have with a view that there should only be sectoral planning - because it seems to me that there is very little interest in overall or cross-sectoral planning - is that there is a large number of sectors, for which there may be some cross-referencing. This may provide opportunities that could be missed in a specific sector-by-sector analysis.

The Minister has suggested already that we have the agricultural, tourism, fishing, forestry, mining, arts, oil and gas and retail industries and, lest we forget, the public sector - right now the biggest sector. Without any overall analysis or, to use another word, corporate planning, we could have people going off in different directions as we have seen in the last year in the behaviour the departments have exhibited, when it comes to establishing priorities. We have one department saying that it is going to privatize everything under the sun, expressed by a senior manager, which appears to be news to the brass in the government - the Cabinet, or at least the Government Leader.

That is probably news to the Minister, too.

In any case, it does bespeak the need to have some overall direction so that we all know that people are pulling generally in the same direction and, where there are opportunities that may be identified between sectors, those opportunities are not only captured but acted upon in some form or other.

It was always our assumption that the planning was not simply for the government, to see how the government could behave and how we could best support the non-government sector, but also to afford an opportunity for the actors in various industries - who quite often have a very narrow list of acquaintances - to broaden their horizons so that they, too, might see opportunities that may not be obvious to them in their daily lives.

We have some different approaches and we will see how the government is doing in a couple of years' time - or we will do another assessment in the next sitting on how the government is doing.

The Minister said that the video gambling preliminary report has already been delivered to him and that a final report is expected soon. Can the Minister tell us when we will be able to see the public version of this report and when the government will be acting upon it in some way?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe the council's hope is to have that report in my hand before the end of this month.

Mr. McDonald:

By that I take it that shortly after that this will be a public document and we will all be treated with the wisdom of the council on this particular question.

The Minister indicated that the first sectoral review would be dedicated to the arts. I know the Minister is aware that the Department of Tourism, arts branch, is either now completing or has just completed a major review of the arts. Can the Minister tell us how these two initiatives will ultimately dovetail, one with the other?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am sure that the department would be making its findings known to the Council on the Economy and the Environment. I believe that there may have been some correspondence already.

Mr. McDonald:

Can I take it that the Minister is of the view that there is not going to be an overlap in terms of the mandate of either review and that one will only serve to enhance the other - and that there will not be any frustrations out there?

I know that there were some public meetings and that there was a large number of people under the impression that this was going to lead to a comprehensive arts policy. Is the Minister confident that this will dovetail well?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, I am sure it will. As I have stated previously, I have a good deal of confidence in the Council on the Economy and the Environment and the professional manner in which they do their job. I am certain that they are not going out there to try to reinvent the wheel. If this information has already been gathered by the arts branch, the Council on the Economy and the Environment will use that in their deliberations. I do not see

Page Number 2530

duplication.

The Member is right, the consultation by the arts branch will end up being government policy at some point.

Mr. McDonald:

On the last point that the Member made about consultation by the arts branch ending up being government policy, or leading to something that is directly government policy, does the Minister mean that they would not necessarily wait to develop a comprehensive arts policy prior to the report coming from the Council on the Economy and the Environment on the arts?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, I did not mean to leave that impression at all. I do not expect that it will be very long before we have something from the Council on the Economy and the Environment on the arts. It is the first sector that it will be looking at. This will all be taken into consideration when the policy is being developed and updated.

Mr. McDonald:

Obviously, the Council on the Economy and the Environment was aware that the arts branch was undertaking a wide-ranging review of arts in the Yukon and that there was a report delivered to the Minister. Knowing what the Council on the Economy and the Environment knew, can the Minister tell us why, given that there had already been some advancement on the review of the arts, they chose this as the the first sector to assess, and why they would not have chosen retail trade, fishing, mining or anything else? Why did they not choose something else, given all of the work that had been done by the arts branch?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that is exactly why they chose the arts. All the groundwork had been done, and it will save them some dollars not going back over the same ground. They will be reviewing that, and seeing how they will follow up on it from that point on. I am sure that is the reason for taking that sector first.

Mr. McDonald:

That was the reason they communicated with the Minister for going with the arts first?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that was the reason that they gave me to go with the arts first.

Mr. Harding:

I have a few questions for the Minister on the recent developments in the Faro mine sale. It has been a long and drawn-out process.

Last week I had a chance to peruse the court documents. They were quite lengthy, and I thank the government for providing me with them. I hope that continues. I have also had a chance to peruse the documents that came out of court on the weekend. Today is Wednesday, and it is clear from the court documents that they have recommended that an agreement be pursued with Anvil Range Mining Corporation. I was wondering if, in a general sense, the Government Leader has anything to report regarding developments in that area that have resulted during the last couple of days.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, I do not have anything new to report at all.

Mr. Harding:

Have they had any communication with Anvil Range in the last week and one-half? Are they planning any meetings to discuss the mine sale - how they may be able to aid the proponents of the project in dealing with red tape or in working out some of the problems that they may have? Have they had any discussions with them? Have they decided to have any meetings, or anything of that nature?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I heard today, just before coming into the Legislature, that some of the proponents of Anvil Mining are in the Yukon, but they have not contacted us at this time.

Mr. Harding:

Is the government planning to take an active role in aiding the proponents in getting this mine going again? Will there be any hand extended to the proponents to aid them in the process of getting the mine going again, or will the government basically leave them on their own? What I am hearing flies in the fact of the open-for-business message the government has, the hiring of the mining facilitator, and that type of thing. I would have thought that there would be some movement on behalf of the government, in terms of aiding the proponents in getting the mine going again. Is there going to be some effort in that direction by the government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I think the Member opposite is getting a little ahead of himself. Anvil Range has not purchased the mine yet. They are many weeks away from purchasing the mine. The minute they come to our door, we are prepared to sit down and discuss how we can help them to purchase the mine. At this point, I cannot make any commitments.

Mr. Harding:

I am well aware that Anvil Range has not yet purchased the mine. I know about the June 20 deadline to come up with some capital. One of the key components of a successful bidder getting funding from the private sector to support the project is if they know what is in store for them. What is the relationship going to be? Is the Government of the Yukon going to be hostile toward them buying the mine? Is the Government of the Yukon going to work with them to try to deal with the red tape mining proponents often have to deal? Is the government going to be interested in pursuing any kind of a development agreement of any nature with the proponents? These are questions that anyone who is being approached about investing in a project by the Anvil Range mining company is going to ask. I do know that the mine has not been sold yet; there has just been a hand extended to Anvil Range by the courts, to say, "We think you are the best bid so far." Surely, the Government Leader would concede that the relationship between the Yukon and the federal government is going to be one of the considerations of anybody in the private sector who is looking at backing the project. Is that not a fair statement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not think there is any doubt in any mining company's mind as to our open-for-business policy. We have attracted a lot of interest in the Yukon with that policy - some $20 million to $25 million worth of exploration work. There are some five mines going through permitting right now. We are prepared to sit down with the proponents of Anvil Range mining when they come to see us. The mining facilitator is there for them to use; our offices are here, and I am sure when the time is right, they will be in talking to us.

Mr. Harding:

I am not trying to force the government into anything here. I am just pointing out that I think it is in the Yukon's best interests not just to say one is open for business, but act like one is open for business as well and make it clear that that is, in fact, how one feels about mining operations in the Yukon. I think that, at some point, there has to be a decision by the government that it is serious about working to see this mine start up again and see it sold. That is going to take a certain amount of commitment, I believe, on behalf of the federal government, the territorial government and the proponents.

On Monday, during Question Period, I asked about the energy policy. The Government Leader said they were going to be looking at working out some kind of energy arrangement. The Minister was trying to say it was not a subsidy, but he said he was looking at working out energy arrangements with the Anvil Range group that would be based on the industrial support policy.

Is it the government's policy that there will be no discussions on that prior to the June 20 deadline, when the company has to come up with the capital they have said they can produce for the mine sale: $27 million?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It is very difficult for me to answer these questions when the company management has not even been in to see me yet. I do not know what I can tell the Member at this point, because I have had no requests from Anvil Range Mining Corporation at this point.

I do want to put on the record right now that, in respect to our

Page Number 2531

industrial support policy, we have made it quite clear it is not going to be a subsidy policy. Whatever is done under that policy will be voted through this Legislature.

I further want to put on the record that I have received quite a few replies from mining companies in regard to the industrial support policy, and they are very favourable toward it. One company did point out to me that we have to be very cautious and creative to ensure that there are some real benefits to the Yukon, rather than subsidies to mining companies. This was from a mining company.

Mr. Harding:

The Government Leader is not going to get any argument from me. If the government is going to look at a development agreement with any mining company or negotiate any favourable power rates, there has to be some economic benefit for Yukoners, some jobs and spinoffs. That is the whole point of the corporation being in the Yukon in the first place, as far as I am concerned: to create wealth, jobs, spinoffs, businesses and to employ people. He will get no argument from me on that. Whoever it was in the mining company who said that was dead right.

When the Government Leader stands up and says it is not a subsidy, I know it is a political message he wants to send out. That is fair enough. I know the industrial support policy that Curragh had for energy was called a subsidy before by the Members opposite, yet the industrial support policy described it as a reasonable arrangement. In the past, the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation said it was a very bad deal. It is difficult to tell what the real position of the government is.

Politically, I know they want to say that they are not going to subsidize a mining company, and that is fair enough. No one on this side or on that side wants to subsidize a mining company, but let us get beyond that. In terms of the energy policy and the agreement that Curragh had, as is described in the industrial support policy, does the Minister stand by the words in that document - that it was a reasonable agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It probably was at that time.

Mr. Harding:

I am trying to remember the exact words from Question Period the other day. I believe the Government Leader said he was prepared to look at giving some relief to the mine buyers on their energy rates. He can correct me when he stands up, if I am wrong.

I know he cannot comment, because he has not been approached yet but, in general terms of policy, what would that mean - that he would be prepared to look at some relief? What does that mean, specifically?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We made it quite clear, and I believe we used the Faro mine as an example, that we would be prepared to enter into an agreement whereby we would tie the price of power to the commodity being produced. What that would mean is that the mines, when they had low metal prices, would not have high energy costs but, when the metal prices went up, we would recoup whatever we put in at that time that was below the rate they should have been paying.

At no point will they get a subsidy. It will be a balancing-out of their energy payments, and this will help the companies in times when their commodity prices and cashflow are low - it will not be an extraordinary burden on them. We are prepared to enter into those types of agreements. As the price of zinc comes up, they will be paying more than the regular rate of power to recoup what they were given when those prices were low.

Mr. Harding:

That sounds fair. That type of arrangement will pose some investor nervousness, I am sure, but nonetheless, it seems fair.

Is the Minister aware that there were agreements of that nature with the former owners of the Faro mine? I know there were in the area of housing and the bulk haulage rates, and I do believe there was also an arrangement similar to that in some of the areas of power generation. Is the Minister familiar with any of those agreements?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Only in the broad context. I do not know the details of any of those agreements. My understanding is that they had a very favourable power rate, but I do not know the details of those agreements.

Mr. Harding:

My only comment is that the previous administration negotiated agreements similar to the ones the Government Leader has talked about, so I would say that, in principle, we would probably have no problem supporting that type of an arrangement.

The Minister has often said in the House that he has been told by mining companies they are looking at a startup - the people who have talked about buying the mine - in the first quarter of 1996, but yet one of the proponents has publicly stated that they are considering trying to open in the summer of 1995.

Was the Minister in error when he said that the mining companies have all told him that they were looking at the first quarter of 1996, or was he saying that mining companies had not told him that, but rather he was looking at what analysts told him.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

In answer to the Member's preamble, I do not believe the previous administration had a policy on energy where they recovered the beneficial rates that were given when prices were low. I think it was a set rate that the Faro mine had for its energy costs. This is a little bit different program from the previous one and it will also be a program that will be visible to all ratepayers in the Yukon, because it will be voted in this House. It will not be a program that is negotiated and not made public. If I remember, those were some of the concerns raised during the debates and the issues that were raised in public.

About the statements that I made with regard to the mine opening in the first quarter of 1996, those statements were based on two things: on analysts' statements and on meetings that I had at that time with those companies, which was several months ago now. Those were the projections of those companies. Certainly, those things will change if metal prices change.

I believe that the company now interested in the mine is talking about starting up this fall and doing some stripping, with the hope of processing concentrate in the fall of 1995 - if I recall correctly what I read in the papers. As I say, I have not met with the company yet or talked to them, but it will depend upon commodity prices when the mine will be economical to operate.

I do not think that anyone can expect a new mine to go ahead - especially with new startup - and to start producing if they are going to be losing money. Startup will depend upon the commodity prices.

Mr. Harding:

I want to comment on the Minister's preamble about bringing a policy or a plan for a rate agreement through the House and that everyone is going to know about it and everything will be fine. I can remember reading Hansard when there was a stripping loan arrangement worked out with Curragh Inc. It was brought before the Legislature and a witness brought in. All of the terms of the arrangement were disclosed and questions were asked by the previous Opposition. In the end, the Opposition supported the loan and voted for the government's action.

After the election, they assumed control of protecting the security, but we have never heard one word from them, now that they are in government, about their previous support of the action by the government, even though they voted for it in the Legislature.

What has happened is precisely the opposite. Every chance the government gets, they attack the previous administration for it, even though they supported it and knew all of the terms. Everything was disclosed.

Page Number 2532

I do not think that the Minister would get the same type of action from us, but I wanted to caution the Minister that just because it comes through the Legislature, Members who vote on things do not always stand by what they vote for when they move to the other side of the House.

The other thing I wanted to ask about was the stripping and the company setting an optimistic schedule. It does look optimistic at this point - given the base metal prices of about 43 cents a pound - that they want to begin stripping in the fall. They have to strip anyway, and that has to happen before mining can begin, whenever that is.

One of the main concerns in Faro is that there are still quite a few people living there. A lot of them have no desire to move from their community, which they consider to be their home. They are very interested in what we say in this Legislature and what takes place with the sale of the mine. They are very interested in what Anvil Range's next move is, and they are following it quite closely.

When this stripping does get done, and there is preparatory work undertaken, they are concerned that there are a number of jobs for the people in the community. The Government Leader brought this up in the context of contract regulations this week, and how some people in the communities want to ensure there is hiring done in the communities for different contracts. It is much the same case in Faro. They want to see some employment, if there is some preparatory work done, simply because it is their home and they feel they have some claim to it.

The Ross River Dena Council also wants to receive some employment opportunities, training and other benefits from the property. I think everyone in Faro supports their position. I think there will be enough to go around.

In the past, the government has been supportive. I have read documents indicating their support. If there is preparatory or environmental reclamation work done, the people who live in Faro and Ross River area should have the opportunity to maximize the benefits they get for employment. Is that still the position of the Yukon government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have a few comments regarding the Member opposite's preamble. He talked about the $5 million loan, which was voted through this Legislature. Opposition Members supported it. I just want to let the Member know, in case he was not aware of it - and if he does not believe me, he can go back and check Hansard - that Opposition Members were assured over and over again that the loan was fully secured, and there was no way the taxpayers of the Yukon could lose that $5 million.

Our position has not changed with respect to who should get the jobs in Faro. We certainly believe that the people in the area should have the opportunity for jobs that are made available there.

Mr. Harding:

I should tell the Government Leader that there was full security on the loan - as much security as any of the other creditors who are now in liens court trying to claim their money. How much security did the Members want? There was as much security as was humanly possible to obtain. Unfortunately, the government changed hands, and the present government did not choose to protect that security.

They talk about the security floating across the ocean but, unfortunately, the Opposition was not in a position to protect the security, and they did not do what should have been done. If they had wanted to seize it, they should have done that. They did not. I do not know what happened.

I do not know if the Leader of the Official Opposition was supposed to sit on the ore pile in Skagway with a rifle to protect it. As much as was humanly possible to do was done to negotiate security. There was full security. Everyone thought they had full security, whether they had liens on the equipment in Faro, or whatever. It is all in the courts now.

I have read through Hansard. It is clear that the government felt they had as much security as possible. The Opposition Members, who are now the government, asked all kinds of questions about it. They obviously felt it was pretty good security, because they voted for it. All I can say is that they can only be judged by their actions.

Anyway, that is an old debate. I would prefer not to go over it again.

I do get a little concerned when I hear the Government Leader, not because he is not making a valid point, but because it is indicative, I believe, of what I consider to be a somewhat lackadaisical attitude in terms of energy commitment to reopening the Faro mine. The base metal price is a major factor - there is no question - in the determination of a feasibility point in the mine. I wish I had the Micon report, which the Government Leader has had the good fortune to look at, which evaluated, last year, the feasibility of the Grum ore body and the mining of it. I do not. All I can do is look at the other factors, along with base metals, that influence feasibility prices. One is purchase price and capital outlay, equipment purchase, purchase of the mine and all of those things that have to take place in order to start up a mine.

The second, is, of course, foreign currency rates and the Canadian dollar. Of course, when it is low the product is worth more to us and right now it is very, very low, around 72.5 cents. For a lot of the time we were losing money with Curragh, the dollar was around 88 to 84 cents, so there is a significant difference in the feasibility or break-even point of the mine. There are also factors such as smelting charges. I am not privy to the information right now, as to what lead-zinc companies are paying for smelting charges, but that can certainly eat up a lot of the price of the product, if those charges are high. That sometimes changes. Smelting company contracts vary widely. Of course, there are other factors, such as labour costs, energy rate costs, transportation costs, which all influence at what point the mine can be feasible.

When the Minister talks about base metal prices, is he giving what he considers to be fair consideration to the other factors that influence the feasibility range, and can he give any indication as to what he believes is the feasible range? He should have some pretty extensive knowledge in this area, given the Micon report.

Chair:

Order please. We will take a brief recess at this time.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to Order. Is there further general debate?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Just before the break, I believe the Member opposite was asking if I had a price in mind that things should be at in order for the Faro mine to start up again. I do not have that. As the Member opposite said, it would depend on many things. The price of power certainly is not one of them - it would be a minor thing. The company that has been selected to go into confidential negotiations is buying this property for less than what the minimum projected price was for the sale of that property. I believe the minimum they thought they could get was $35 million. I think they have basically stolen the property - they got it for a few cents on the dollar. My concern would be that power rates in the Yukon are not out of line with other jurisdictions. The fluctuation of power rates is really a small matter compared to the fluctuation of the concentrate price.

While I am on that subject, I would like to say to the Member opposite that, if he recalls when Curragh had just closed down a year ago, and they were raising concerns and saying that they needed five-cent power to operate that facility, we projected what five-cent power would cost Yukoners if we were to give it to that

Page Number 2533

operation, and I believe the figure that we came up with was that it would have taken $30 million in subsidies over the life of the Grum deposit; therefore, it certainly was not an option. I do believe, now that a company has been selected to enter into final negotiations for the purchase of the property, that they have been able to buy the property at a very reasonable price, so that is going to be a plus for them in being able to put the property back into production and make it a viable operation.

I am sure they will be able to restart an operation that is economically viable without government subsidies. We are prepared to enter into discussions with them under the industrial support policy to, basically, level out their costs, so that they do not have high costs when commodity prices are low. We are prepared to negotiate bulk-haul agreements, as we are with any other operation that would be going ahead, and I will be looking forward to them contacting me to sit down to see in what areas the government can help.

Mr. Harding:

I am kind of worried about the Anvil Range mining group's public relations problems. They seem to be popping up all over the place in the Yukon, and that is certainly to be expected. I was at the Ross River Dene Council press conference yesterday; they said they did not want another Curragh and were worried about the people involved. I was just flipping through the Whitehorse Star and there were many, many references from environmental groups, coupled with, again, the Ross River Dene Council, mining analysts who were named and mining analysts who wished to remain anonymous, a cartoon that has "RIP, Curragh, 1985-1993", and there is an old hand reaching up out of the grave. It is clear to me that a lot of questions are being asked about the proponents. I have not personally had discussions with the proponents of this property. I have had dealings with some of them in the past - some were good and some were not so good.

I would like, as an MLA for Faro, to give them the opportunity to gain Yukoners' confidence. That is important, and they have a real public relations uphill battle. I do not want to heap laurels upon them by any means, but I also do not want to condemn them for things that have happened in the past, given that the company was led by a fairly strong-minded individual in the person of Clifford Frame - who, I believe, set a lot of the tone for the organization. That is not to say everyone else was a saint, or anything like that, but I believe that led to some of the problems.

In an effort to deal with some of those problems, is the government going to suggest anything to deal with that to Anvil Range, so we can get on with the business of seeing whether or not they are going to have a feasible bid for the mine? Are they going to be trying to impress upon them that they should be quite open in terms of their dealings with Yukoners - like those people in Faro, Ross River, Whitehorse and the rest of the Yukon - about their plans? I am just worried that they will not know what has hit them when they show up here, in terms of their perception of how bad it really is. Is the government planning anything in that area, or are they just going to let them go on their own?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It would be purely hypothetical for me to comment on the issues the Member opposite has raised. I have not even met with the company since they have been selected as the one to enter into confidential negotiations with the receiver of the property.

The Member opposite speaks of the poor reputation the previous company had with Yukoners. There is no doubt about that. However, I do not think it will be necessary for me to impress that on them, because there are a number of former Curragh people involved in this company. They are fully aware of what the public perception of the operations of the Curragh company in the Yukon was. They are intelligent people and have spent a lot of time in the Yukon. I do not think they have any doubts about what the Yukon public's perception of Curragh was.

Mr. Harding:

The Minister said it would be hypothetical. I was just asking him, as a matter of public policy and planning, whether he intended to do anything. I did not suggest for a second that he should be out there selling the proponents to Yukoners. I was asking if, as a matter of policy, they were intending to suggest that Curragh do some things to better their state in that area. But, that is fine, I accept the Government Leader's answer. I guess we can talk about that more in the future, as this thing develops or does not develop.

I have one last question for the Minister about the proponents, Anvil Range. The other day in Question Period we talked about what money is outstanding to the Yukon government as a creditor, and I named a figure of $7.4 million. I am not sure that is correct. I know there is the $5 million stripping loan; I believe there is $2.4 million in power rate and energy costs and there may be some bulk haulage costs. Can he give me a ballpark figure on what the amount is and where we stand as creditors, whether secured or not, in those areas?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not have the exact figure, but I can get it for the Member if he really needs it. I think it is closer to $9 million that is outstanding. Where do we fit? We fit with the rest of the creditors. I do not see anybody coming out of this with a lot of money, not at the suggested purchase price that is out there. The first creditor in line for monies will be the employees, represented by employment standards, after the receiver gets paid out...

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The receiver?

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have no idea what the total bill is on that. I think we would be stretching it, if we thought we were going to recover any significant amount of the money that is owed to us.

Mr. Harding:

Does the Government Leader have some idea of what the secured claims are? I believe it is about $60 million or over that? If you include the noteholders that are totally unsecured, it is almost $200 million. Does the Government Leader have any idea what the secured figure is? I am trying to get a sense, if that is the way you figure what the dollar is: you take the purchase price, subtract the receiver's cost, and then determine the secured amounts. You then find out some estimate of the dollar recovery from the court proceedings.

Can the Minister give me some idea there?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am afraid that I cannot help the Member very much, because what is claimed and what is going to be approved by the court are two different things.

I believe the lien claimants have between $23 million, or something like that, and the banks are still in there, at some point. They may have been paid out from the Sa Dena Hes sale, but I do not know.

I do know that all these have to be approved by the receiver. I do not have a concrete figure that I can give the Member today.

Mr. Harding:

Could the Government Leader provide me with a scenario breakdown; for example, if all the secured liens were accepted, as they are presented, and if the government's claim was also accepted, based on the purchase price that has been bandied about, what the return would be? I would like to see a few scenarios drawn up. Would that be possible? Would it be difficult?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know how difficult it would be. I will check with my officials. If the Member reads through all the court documents, I believe he could sort that out. It is all listed in the court documents as to what the lien claimants are and the different liabilities that are against the company. I will see if I can get something for the Member, but I could not promise it at this time.

Mr. Harding:

I have read the court documents, as long as

Page Number 2534

they are. I know the government has people who are dealing with them for a living right now. I thought it might be easier for them to sort some of that out. If he could provide it, I would appreciate it.

The Minister has said that my constituents and other former Curragh employees would be subject first for the payment, in accordance with the Employment Standards Act. It would be repayment of wages due them. Under the Employment Standards Act, I believe that is up to two months' wages, plus one year's holiday pay.

My understanding was that that was a direct liability of the directors of Curragh themselves, and that the certificates for those lost wages have been filed against a liability fund they had set up for the directors and which, right now, is being challenged by the insurance company that funded the liability fund.

Can the Minister tell me what he means when he says the employees would be first in line? I did not think they had a claim against the purchase price of the mine, but rather against the directors liability fund that was established.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know all the details of the receivership, but I do know that there are other people who are after the directors fund. It all has to be sorted out by the courts.

I have a note from Finance, which has been monitoring the debate in the House. These are very rough figures, but they believe there is about $4 million owed to the receiver. Secured creditors are in the range of $23 million. These figures are very rough. I saw that number in the court documents in the last couple of days, and Finance has also picked it up.

Mr. McDonald:

I have a few questions regarding the industrial support policy. I am not sure I understand how this policy works. I understand some of the policy principles, but I am not sure how it works.

The Minister has indicated that it is not a subsidy, and that the only benefit to an industrial consumer is that the fluctuations in commodity prices will help guide the price of power charged to the industrial consumer. Consequently, that will provide them greater certainty in terms of their costs than what they would have if they just had a flat rate payable.

The industrial support policy does mention, on page 7, that changes in power rates do not have a great impact on the viability of a mine. It is the fluctuations of metal prices that could accomplish that, more than anything else. I am trying to figure out how this will work, and how the balances will be struck. When the Minister says that this is not a subsidy, I am under the impression that there will be no net long-term costs to the taxpayers or ratepayers. Is that a fair assumption?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is a fair assumption in a perfect world. What we are doing is taking some risk here that the operation will continue for a certain number of years. If we were in a situation where the company went into receivership, and we were owed money, there could be some loss to the taxpayers of the Yukon.

In a perfect world, we would hope that, by leveling out the cost of power over the projected life of the project - or even a certain sector of it - we would be able to recoup the money with which we assisted the company when metal prices were low. When metal prices went up, the company would pay more than what they would if they were paying a regular power rate throughout the entire period.

Let us say, for example, that power rates were seven cents a kilowatt. In the early stages there were low metal prices, and we were subsidizing it to the tune of two cents a kilowatt, so they were only paying five cents at that time. Once commodity prices went up, they would begin paying nine cents, to repay the subsidy they received when they were on the low end. In a perfect world, over the life of the project, it would balance out, and they would have the ability to project their costs.

As we said earlier, the policy sets out some broad principles and gives us some flexibility.

We will help the companies where they feel the help is required, then bring it back for approval from the Legislature, before it would be finalized.

Mr. McDonald:

The only new broad principle I can detect is that it ties, in some ways, the price of electricity to the price of commodities. That is the only thing that is new that I can detect, so I am trying to determine precisely how this is going to work. The Minister said at one point that they were going to level out the price and advance, trying to anticipate the price of commodities, to ensure that the price of electricity could be anticipated by the industrial consumer. Then, when I read the policy, it seemed to suggest that there was not going to be any leveling out of the price, that it would be a price that would fluctuate with the price of commodities. How is that going to work? I do not understand that element.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have just tried to give the Member an example of that. Let us talk about numbers around the Grum deposit, which is supposed to have a seven-year life. We project what the power costs would be over that seven-year life at seven-cent power. If one ties that to the price of zinc and lead, which the company is producing, when zinc prices were down, they would be paying below the average cost of power and when zinc prices went up, they would be paying above the average cost of power to balance out what we helped them with when prices were down and they did not have the cashflow. It is one way of addressing the situation. There are many other ways in here to address the situation, along with the policy concerning non-utility generators, which the Minister just brought in. Conceivably, a mine could go in and say, "We are going to produce our own power and we will sell the excess power to the utility." That is another way we can help. So, with the combination of those policies, we believe that we have something to offer to the mining community.

Mr. McDonald:

So, what the Minister is saying is that they will look at the economics of the mine prior to cutting a deal with the mine, determine what the price would be to produce electricity, look at the mine's viability with respect to its profitability and then charge a static price for the life of that mine, a price that would account for anticipated fluctuations in commodity prices. Or would it, instead, be a situation where the price of energy would fluctuate on an ongoing basis, with the price of the commodity in some way?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member is correct: the price of the power would fluctuate with the commodity. For instance, if it was going to take $5 million worth of power over the life of the project, at the end of the project they would pay the $5 million for power, but they would not be paying for it when commodity prices are low. They would be paying in excess when commodity prices were high and they had a higher cashflow.

Mr. McDonald:

Is the Minister saying that, whatever the cost of producing the power would be, the costs would be charged in total to the industrial consumer over the life of the mine? Is that right? The actual costs of producing that power would be charged to the industrial consumer. There would be no subsidy over the total life span of that project. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That is the principle of that aspect of this policy.

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister indicated that there was some risk involved. That risk could be associated with a mine going out of business. The policy states the obvious. Fluctuating metal prices can make a mine uneconomic.

Say, for example, a mine the size of Curragh decides to

Page Number 2535

proceed, and they think that they have a 20-year life span. Or, say a mine the size of Sa Dena Hes says that they are going to proceed and operate over a 10-year life span. The metal prices drop, the mine closes, and whatever subsidy that we have already provided to that mine, in terms of the actual price of power that we have charged, or as the result of some new generating facilities we have built, we would simply have to accept as a loss if the mine shuts down. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I presume so, unless we are able to recover it from the sale of the property, or however it would be negotiated into the contract. That is the risk we would be taking, and that is why we are saying that whatever is done under this will come to this Legislature for approval. It will not be done by the government alone. It will have legislative approval, so that Opposition Members know exactly what is at risk to the taxpayers of the Yukon.

Mr. McDonald:

I am certainly assuming that that would be the case, whether there is an expenditure or not. There is historical precedent for it, so we would expect it to continue.

The industrial support policy itself is supposed to be undergoing some consultation. Can the Minister tell us when that consultation is supposed to end, and with whom, inside the Yukon, the government is consulting on this policy?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

There is a long list of names to whom the policy was sent out, with a request for input, and we have been receiving some feedback. We have until the end of May before the policy will be finalized.

Mrs. Firth:

The Minister has provided me with that list of everyone who has been consulted. I have some questions for him. I do not have the list with me - I think my executive assistant or my secretary has it.

I recall the list very vividly. The Minister may have his with him. There is a tremendous number of companies from outside the Yukon being consulted - in Alberta, in British Columbia - with a few being consulted here in the Yukon. Can the Minister tell us where he got the names for this list, and why he is consulting with so many outside mining companies?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It is the outside mining companies that we are trying to encourage to come to the Yukon to develop mines. They have an interest in what the government is doing, so we contacted many companies - I believe the list of the mining companies came from our mailing list for the Cordilleran Roundup, which is held in Vancouver every year. That would be where the major portion of the mining company names came from.

Mrs. Firth:

I am trying to get something clear. I thought this was a policy-development consultative process. It sounds to me like it is an advertising process that the Minister is going through, if he is sending it to all of these outside companies. That is an observation that I make.

If this is a policy that is going to be developed, I thought we would develop the policy in the Yukon and that Yukon companies would be consulted and would be part of the development of the policy. Perhaps the policy should be sent out to all of the other mining companies, to say this is what our policy is. But that is not what is happening. If all of these other companies are being involved in the development of the policy, then I think maybe it has come to be more extensive than what my expectations were and what some Yukoners' expectations were with respect to this consultative process.

Maybe the Government Leader and Minister could get up and clarify it. Is this a development of policy or is this an advertising campaign to say that we are going to have this cheap energy or industrial policy and we want your input into it.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It certainly is not an advertising campaign and the policy has the word "draft" stamped on it. The policy is being developed, and we have asked for input before the policy is finalized.

If there is something that a major portion of people have concerns with, we would address those concerns before we finalize this policy. That is why we went to this process. Many people and organizations, such as CYI, have been contacted, along with the Chamber of Mines and mining companies that have shown an interest in Yukon. We want to hear what they have to say about this draft policy before it is finalized as policy.

Mrs. Firth:

Surely, the Minister can appreciate that this draft policy that he keeps referring to does not give substantive answers; it raises more questions, really. It does not really tell us what the government is going to do about industrial support. It does not say anything specific.

All Members of the Opposition have, at one point in time or another, asked what the policy is. The Minister stood up and said that this was a consultative process, saying that he was looking for input, with some intention, I had expected, of changing it and making it more substantive.

I see the Minister shaking his head that that is not the case. It seems he simply wants people to read this and if they think it is a good idea - I do not know if they are going to understand what it means or how it is going to work - that they are going to get back to the government and say whether they like it or not, and based on the number of responses that the Minister gets back saying yea or nay, it is going to become official government policy - is that what the process is?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member is quite correct. I stood in this House and said that this policy contains broad principles under which we would negotiate for an industrial support policy with individual companies.

I have received replies from - I do not know how many companies for sure - half a dozen, at least, and they have all been very supportive of this policy. What we have said quite clearly from the start is, and I am sure the Member opposite will agree with me, that we cannot say that we are going to supply six-cent power clean across the board. We do not have the ability or the resources to do so.

As I have stated time and time again, this is not a subsidization policy; this is to help with the startup of new developments in the Yukon. We are prepared to work with the companies in that respect, be it in training, roads or power - this, along with the non-utility generators. Say a mining company wanted to put in a 15- or 20-megawatt plant to supply their own power and sell the balance to the utility; we are prepared to enter into such agreements.

What we have done with this policy, which was the best we could do with the limited resources of this government, is set out some broad principles, so that the industries will know that this government will sit down and discuss with them ways that we can help them to get their projects onstream.

Mrs. Firth:

Perhaps I should just express my reservations about how the government is doing this. I have heard this from other people in the industry.

My concern is this: I would feel more comfortable if there were some rules outlined - not just some broad, general policy principles, but some rules. That way, every mining company or anyone who approaches the government would know what the rules are and that there is a perception of a level playing field. This does not do that. All this says is that if someone wants to start a mine in the Yukon, they should come and talk to the government, sit down and make a deal. Where are the principles of fairness in that? How would the mining company know if they are being dealt with in as fair a manner as another? The enunciation that there is a level playing field and that there are some basic rules and that everyone

Page Number 2536

is going to be treated equally is lacking in this policy. I am just passing on my concerns to the Minister. I would also like to say that I have heard the same concern from others. There does not appear to be any rules.

I have a question for the Minister, as well, to add to the concerns I have raised, regarding oil companies. I notice that oil companies have been sent this, as well. Can the Minister tell us why they have done this?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I should ask the Member why not? We are trying to attract exploration to the Yukon. If there is a find, they will have energy requirements and other requirements. If they are going to use more than one kilowatt of power, it would apply to them as well. So, we are looking for input by them. If there was a discovery - let us use the hypothetical case of Eagle Plains - there would be substantial power requirements to get the gas or oil out of there. So, we are looking for input into this from anybody.

Mrs. Firth:

I only asked the question because I was of the impression that oil companies generally had their own power sources. Maybe the information I have been given is not accurate, but that made common sense to me, that that was the way it worked. I was just curious as to why oil companies were included in the list for consultative process. I do not have any further questions. I have expressed my concerns and perhaps some of the other Members would like to raise some questions.

Mr. Cable:

I have just a couple of questions on that. I gather the comprehensive energy policy is being developed now and I take it that the focus of that is in the Minister's department. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member and I talked about this before. The Member opposite likes to see piles of policies that high. This government does not believe in that. We have developed this, and we have developed the non-utility generation policy. These form a couple of the planks in our comprehensive energy policy. Is is as simple as that.

Mr. Cable:

What are the other planks that the Minister sees?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member can direct that question to the Minister responsible for energy when we get to that department.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Cable:

I did not think that he had a department either. It seems to me that the previous Economic Development Minister had indicated that the focus for energy policy development would be in economic development, instead of the Energy Corporation. Has that changed?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe that what the previous Minister was saying was that this specific policy - this one here - says that we would no longer be subsidizing industrial users on the backs of the ratepayers of the Yukon - that anything that was being given would be done through the floor of this Legislature. The taxpayers of the Yukon would be doing it.

Regarding the comprehensive energy policy, the government's industrial electrical policy forms a part of that. Other aspects are that we have already made a decision to end the SEAL program within the Department of Economic Development in favour of programming offered by Yukon Housing. That is another aspect of it. We are developing the oil and gas legislation, and that is another aspect of the energy policy. We have acted on our promise to make Yukon Energy Corporation focus on energy projects only. That is another part of the energy policy.

We have brought forward the energy infrastructure loans for resources development program to assist small industrial projects, so the Yukon Energy Corporation will soon be bringing forward a policy on the independent power producers, which the Minister has already talked about in this House. When this is all put together, we do have a comprehensive energy policy.

Mr. Cable:

Where is the focus for the privatization thrust? Is it in the Minister's department or with the Yukon Energy Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

That would fall under the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Mr. Cable:

Is the Minister saying that the privatization of the Yukon Energy Corporation is being driven on a policy basis by the corporation itself, or by the Minister? What is he saying?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation has stood in this House time and time again. I do not know if the Member opposite has been listening or reading Hansard for what he has said, but we are in very preliminary explorations as to whether to privatize energy in the Yukon or not.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am talking about the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation.

The policy that is being developed jointly by both departments. The non-utility generation came from the Yukon Energy Corporation, not from Economic Development. I see no problem at all. The Member opposite seems to think that the only way to accomplish anything is to have monumental studies. We do not believe in that.

Mr. Cable:

I am not talking about something that big. So far, we have this teensy document that is supposed to restructure the world of energy. There is a whole list of things: dealing with the risk on the system, dealing with the environmental considerations of coal. There are a number of things, and the focus for that - my suggestion to the Minister - is the Department of Economic Development, not the supplier of electricity. Would the Minister not agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

If the Member opposite is encouraging us to undertake a huge study, we are not about to do that. We are working on coal, the environment and all these issues. We do not need a huge study to accomplish that.

Mr. Cable:

I am somewhat surprised, because I think the side opposite, when in Opposition, was very critical of what was going on in the energy world, if I remember correctly. Yet, there does not seem to be any cohesive thrust to what is going on in the energy world.

Let me ask this question on this policy, where the pricing of electricity to mines would permit the price to float up and down with the price of zinc. Has the Minister's energy people in the Department of Economic Development determined whether or not that is acceptable under the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, we have addressed that. If the price balances out, we believe it will be acceptable under the free trade agreement. It is not a subsidy, and we have said that time and time again.

I just want to point out to Members opposite that I would like them to let me know if they have some magic formula that they can tell me, so I can set a price of so much a kilowatt for an industrial user - not knowing where that industrial user is going to be, not knowing if it is going to take a good extension to get in there, and not knowing how long that operation is going to survive. I do not believe we have the ability or the resources to do anything like that. We have to have a flexible policy, so we can sit down and negotiate with each one of these people on an individual basis.

Mr. Cable:

I am not criticizing the exploration of this theory.

We have had Venus Mine, Arctic, Ketza and Mount Skukum. Not all have taken public power, but they have all gone down after a very short period of time. Is the Minister considering that he will take some security for the subsidy - whatever it is called - during the start-up period - when, I assume, the costs will be high, or maybe the prices for metal will be low - so that we do

Page Number 2537

not have the situation that he was criticizing a few minutes ago: having the security floating overseas on the ocean?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Most definitely we would be taking security. It will also have the scrutiny of this Legislature before anything is done. That is the key to this. The policy of whatever is given to them will be in public, and the public will know exactly what it is. For the Member opposite to say that we have not done anything on energy is wrong, because we have already made moves to make sure that the Yukon Development Corporation concentrated its efforts on electrical generation, not on other economic initiatives.

Mr. Cable:

I did not say the government had done nothing. What I am suggesting is that there may be more to be done, and it should be focused, in my view, in the Minister's department and not the Energy Corporation. The Energy Corporation is an invaluable source of information and assistance, but it should not be calling the shots, in my view.

What about the risk in the system to some of these new mining ventures? Is the Minister prepared to talk to these mining ventures about things like take-or-pay contracts, where if they suddenly shut down and put the whole system into a big flap, as Curragh did, they will still pay for the electricity? This is the quid pro quo for the arrangement that the Minister is talking about.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Again, there is no doubt that all of those things will be taken into consideration and negotiated with the industrial user that would be interested in entering into negotiations with us for their project.

Mrs. Firth:

I want to get something clear about who is responsible for what, because I share the concerns that the Member for Riverside has raised.

We had a previous Minister of Economic Development, and we have constantly been told by the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation that Economic Development was taking the lead role in the development of the energy policy.

The Minister shows us this document, and it does not present a lead role in the development of the energy policy. This is, as he said, one plank of the energy policy.

The Minister is standing up and saying that that is no longer the case, that he is not the Minister responsible for energy and that the Minister responsible for Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation is the energy Minister.

I would like it clarified whether or not Economic Development is going to be involved in any way in the development of the energy policy, or is the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation going to be doing this?

I have asked, very specifically, about some contracts that were entered into by the Yukon Energy Corporation and we were told that it was the Department of Economic Development that was going to be the lead department with respect to the development of a comprehensive energy policy. We were told by the previous Minister on many occasions.

I get a bit concerned when the Minister responsible for energy gets up and says he is not responsible for energy, and that one of the other Ministers is responsible for energy.

Mr. Chair, I know you are going to ask me to finish up here, but, after the break, perhaps the Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development and energy could come back and clarify for us exactly who is going to take the lead role with respect to energy. I will bring the Yukon Party's four-year plan back with me, as well. In that plan, there is a lot of talk about energy and the development of a comprehensive energy policy and how this government would do better than the former one. So far, all we have is an industrial energy support policy.

The Minister is saying no, that they have done things with respect to oil and gas legislation, the SEAL program, the industrial support policy, which we have, the independent power producers policy and some privatization initiatives, which are being done by the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Perhaps the Minister could bring back all these little policy papers tonight, so that he can share them with us. Perhaps then we could see what has been done with respect to energy policy.

Just for the information of the Minister responsible for energy - the Minister of Economic Development - in his budget, on page 37, the program objectives of energy and mines are listed that encourage the development of the Yukon's mineral and energy resources: formulating recommendations, developing policies, providing information to consumers to encourage the efficient use of energy and promote the replacement of imported energy with Yukon alternatives. They are all energy related.

The Minister responsible should be prepared to stand up when we come back and give us some definite clarification about who will be responsible for energy policy.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We can do it in about 30 seconds. We are talking about energy or electrical energy generation. We are talking about two different things here. For electrical energy generation, it is the Minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation; it is his field. That is why the non-utility generation producers come under his department, not mine, though we have to work together on some of these issues.

Chair:

Order please. The time being 5:30 p.m., we will recess until 7:30 p.m.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

We were dealing with Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95. Is there further general debate on Economic Development?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Just before the break, there was quite a lively debate on comprehensive energy policy and fields of responsibility. I would like to try, for the record, to clarify my understanding of the areas of responsibility.

First of all, I would like to read into the record the program objectives under the energy and mines section of Economic Development. The objectives are to encourage the development of Yukon's mineral and energy resources by undertaking research, formulating recommendations, developing policies, strategies and programs; to provide information to consumers; to encourage efficient use of energy; to promote the replacement of imported energy with Yukon alternatives; to conduct analyses of, and provide recommendations to, appropriate government agencies to reduce energy costs in public buildings; to promote mining investment in the Yukon, particularly where significant benefits from the investment remain in the Yukon; to promote mineral exploration and the discovery of potential viable mineral properties; to promote and increase the knowledge of regional geology, technological research and development and public knowledge of the mining industry.

When we get to electrical energy production and supply, that is clearly in the domain of the Yukon Development Corporation and the Yukon Energy Corporation. As a result of that, when Cabinet embarked on a non-utility generation policy, we asked the corporation to formulate the non-utility generation program, as to how it would be envisioned and how it would fit into our energy policy.

The reason for that is that it is the Yukon Energy Corporation that will be purchasing the excess power from the non-utility generators, not the Department of Economic Development; therefore, when we are talking about formulating a comprehensive

Page Number 2538

energy policy, there are two departments involved in it. I hope that will clarify for the Members opposite where I was coming from.

Mr. McDonald:

It does not entirely clarify for me where the Minister is coming from. What elements of a comprehensive energy policy will the Department of Economic Development be undertaking? If the one area he is going to be hiving off to the Yukon Energy Corporation, which is that of issues relating to the non-utility generation of power, what is it that the Department of Economic Development is going to be doing as part of the comprehensive energy policy the government is developing?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

What this government has been doing is to concentrate on the areas of comprehensive energy policy that we felt were most important at this time. Before the break, I related some of the initiatives that will be forming the total comprehensive energy policy. The government's industrial electricity policy forms a new part of the government's overall energy policy. Other aspects of energy management that have already been put into place will be brought forward as appropriate. We have already made a decision to end the SEAL program within the Department of Economic Development in favour of programming offered by the Yukon Housing Corporation.

We are developing Yukon oil and gas legislation over the next year. This process will bring forward policy directions for oil and gas management.

We have acted on our promise to make the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation focus only on energy projects.

We have brought in energy infrastructure loans for resource development programs to assist smaller industrial projects to gain access to energy supply. The Yukon Energy Corporation has recently issued for discussion the policy on independent power producers, which is a non-utility generator policy that was announced by the Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation in the House, a couple of weeks ago.

These are aspects of the comprehensive energy policy that is being developed by this government.

Mr. McDonald:

I think the point of the question was to ask what the government is doing to flesh out the comprehensive energy policy. I heard before the break the Minister saying he felt they had a comprehensive energy policy. I got the impression from his most recent remarks that they were developing more elements of it. Does the Minister consider the components of an energy policy that the government has in place now their comprehensive energy policy, and that there is nothing more of significance that the Department of Economic Development has to do?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As with any policy, there is always going to be more that can be done on it. As I said, the Department of Economic Development is also working on coal-fired electrical generation and we will continue to update it. As I said, some of these are in the process now, but when they are all formulated they will form the comprehensive energy policy of this government.

Mr. McDonald:

So, we do not have a comprehensive energy policy yet; there are still some elements that have to be developed - that is my understanding. When the Minister suggested before the break that there was something akin to a comprehensive energy policy, I took the trouble over the dinner break to look back to comments made at the time by the Member for Hootalinqua, who took great exception to the statement that had been made, which was virtually identical to the one that the Minister made about trying to take the sum total of a mish-mash of energy policies and call that a comprehensive energy policy. It seemed that there have been no corporate, thematic elements intertwined throughout the policy, that it was just simply one program after another added up, which did not add up to a total comprehensive energy policy.

I am still not entirely certain what the government is going to do in terms of the development of a comprehensive energy policy. It seems they are going to - and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong - keep on developing bits and pieces of one energy sector or another as it comes up, and whenever the mood strikes them, they will add or change a little piece here or there.

Will there be any attempt to draw all the themes together so that we have some consistent principles throughout the various branches of the energy policy, or are we simply going to continue to receive an announcement of one project at a time?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

As I said, we are working in the areas that we feel are the most important to Yukoners. We will continue to work and develop them. At some point, they could all be rolled into a comprehensive energy policy. I can see that happening.

Mr. McDonald:

I guess the issue is whether or not that happens by design or by default.

Is it the intention of the government to pursue a comprehensive energy policy to bring all the themes together and ensure their consistency? Is that going to be part of the four-year plan? Does the government have any intention of doing that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, I do not believe that that is part of the four-year plan at all. I do not think it is necessary to do that at this point. I say that, at some time in the future, when these policies are fleshed out and totally developed, such as the oil and gas policy and the other areas we are working on, such as coal, and when the non-utility generators come onstream, it can all be put into one comprehensive policy. However, I do not believe that is critical or necessary at this time.

Mr. McDonald:

The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes was not speaking for the party on April 23, 1992, I take it, when he was talking about the need for a comprehensive energy policy and was insisting on some consistency between the various elements. He was not the leader at the time, so I guess it was just his own opinion.

The Minister mentioned, prior to the break, as well, in discussions with the Member for Riverside, that the industrial support policy had incorporated a concept of ensuring that there was some security deposit put down by new mining ventures to balance the risk for new generating facilities that may be put into place to service those industrial customers. I did not detect that in the industrial support policy. Is the requirement for this security in there?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It is not stated specifically in there. Each one of the projects will be assessed on its own merit, depending on what is being asked for by the government. This will clearly indicate what kind of security is required.

Mr. McDonald:

It would seem to me that that would be a very significant element of any policy, depending what was required. Given the very general nature of the support policy as it stands, surely the government could inject a policy principle stating that, in the event that major costs are associated with new generating facilities to support an industrial project, a security deposit will be required of the industrial user to ensure that the taxpayer and the ratepayer are not left holding the bag should the industrial consumer go bust. That is a very generally stated policy and will allow for a great deal of flexibility. I am just a little surprised that something as significant as this might not be stated because the other two principles are stated - which are that the amount of public investment will correspond directly to the amount of economic benefit we hope to achieve and, secondly, that the energy rates will be tied to the commodity prices.

Was there a reason why that was not stated? Are there other elements that could be stated that mining companies and other industrial users should know about?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It depends how one interprets what is contained in the policy. On page 8, we clearly talk about risk

Page Number 2539

sharing with the private sector in point 3 - "Providing Yukon government assistance to facilitate energy supply opportunities associated with industrial projects and, in those cases, shifting capital risk to government in partnership with the industry." So, it is addressed in a very broad sense.

Mr. McDonald:

If I was an executive person sitting in a highrise in Vancouver thinking about whether or not I was going to invest in the Yukon and I was reading that, what would immediately come to mind would not be that I would have to put down a very large security deposit on a major new generating facility.

In the cover letters the Minister sent out to the mining community outside the territory - and he said he distributed them fairly widely - did he talk about this particular element of the policy or is it not considered to be important enough or significant enough to tell the mining community about?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have stated quite clearly in this policy that assistance given to any industrial user under this policy will come before this Legislature and there will be ample time to see that the government has security to the satisfaction of this Legislature before any assistance is approved and granted.

Mr. McDonald:

That has been made clear already and I appreciate the Minister giving the other MLAs the comfort that they will have the opportunity to discuss and be made aware of the terms of any proposed deal with any particular customer, whether there is an expenditure or not.

Will these arrangements come to the Legislature even if there is not a direct expenditure by the government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am not certain that I understand the Member clearly, but if there is not a direct expenditure, why would we need the approval of the Legislature?

Mr. McDonald:

The Minister has gone to some length to tell us about all of the various ways that a company might be supported and that we may be assuming a risk without making an expenditure in the first year. I was given to believe, when we were discussing this, that if there is a risk to the taxpayer at some point in the future, this Legislature will hear about it and approve that risk - is that not the proper understanding?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, quite clearly, I do not have any difficulty with that and that would be the intent. If there is going to be a risk to the taxpayers of the Yukon that would require the approval of this Legislature - and we have made that quite clear in the policy - it must be approved through debate in this Legislature before any commitments are finalized.

Mr. McDonald:

To tie down this one element about the security required for industrial consumers who may need new infrastructure, as a general statement of policy, is it the case that the industrial consumer will have to put up security to handle any risks that they may cause the taxpayer to bear in the event that they shut down?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It would not necessarily mean they would have to put security down. It could be by collateral or fixed assets, as in normal loaning practices.

Mr. McDonald:

Everything but ore on the dock, I take it. I would not mind learning if the Minister had more information about that particular provision, because I think it is a fairly important element. The discussions between the Member for Riverside and the Minister, led me to a concern that there may be more to this policy than met the eye on first reading. We will perhaps have more of an indication as time goes on.

Does anyone else have more questions on industrial support?

Mrs. Firth:

I am particularly interested in the Minister's comments about how they are working on this policy and the development of all these small policies that are going to end up being the comprehensive energy policy. Are there people working specifically on the energy policy specifically in the Department of Economic Development? Who are they?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes, there are people in the department working on aspects of this policy. We have people working on the oil and gas policy right now. It is a priority, and legislation is to be coming forward next spring. It is a must. The federal government was supposed to be introducing their legislation 18 months after the agreement was signed, and so they would be obligated to bring in their legislation this fall. We will be bringing ours into the House in the spring to replace the federal legislation. We have people working on that aspect of it right now.

Mrs. Firth:

That is one area. He said there were people working on aspects of the policy. What does he mean by that? What other aspects, and how many people are working on the development of these policies?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

This all falls under the economic policy, planning and research division of the Economic Development portfolio.

Mrs. Firth:

Are all of the staff working on specific policies, and if they are, could the Minister tell us what the specific policies are?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It is part of their responsibilities. It is not that the whole department is working specifically on energy policies. We are waiting for the final results of the industrial support policy, as well as the oil and gas policy that is being worked on right now. Those are the two that come to mind that are being worked on right now.

The SEAL program has already been looked after. It is being transferred to Yukon Housing Corporation. That covers most of it right now.

Mrs. Firth:

Could the Minister clarify if his department is in any way working on the privatization of the Energy Corporation, or is that being done strictly by the Energy Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Executive Council Office let the contract to explore involving First Nations in the Energy Corporation. I guess you could say that the Executive Council Office is taking the ultimate responsibility for it. It has been delegated to the Energy Corporation, which has the expertise and the knowledge to deal with that issue.

Mrs. Firth:

Before the break, the Minister said that the Energy Corporation was working on privatization, but now he is saying that it is the Executive Council Office that is working on privatization, in consultation with the Energy Corporation. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It is basically the same as the non-utility generator policy that was developed by the Energy Corporation on the instructions of the Executive Council Office or the Cabinet. They are working on privatization, on the instructions of the Executive Council Office.

Mrs. Firth:

I am trying to figure out how these policies are being developed. The Executive Council Office gives direction to the Energy Corporation. Where does the Executive Council Office get its ideas from? What do they tell the Energy Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The ideas and the policy come from Cabinet.

Mrs. Firth:

Aha. So, Cabinet is giving them their instruction. Has Cabinet made a decision yet with respect to privatization? Have they given any specific instruction to the Energy Corporation regarding privatization, and could the Minister share that with us, so we all know what is being worked on.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, clearly, we have not, and we have stated that in the House. We said we were in exploratory stages and the preliminary report that was commissioned is going to Cabinet shortly. It has been completed. I have not had the opportunity to review it yet, but Cabinet will deal with that report first, before any further decisions are made.

Page Number 2540

Mrs. Firth:

So, Cabinet has not given any instruction to the Energy Corporation, yet we all know that the Energy Corporation is doing something about looking at privatization because we have had lots of questions in the House with respect to that. If the Cabinet has not given any direction, what is the Energy Corporation doing? Are they just doing their own investigation and examining areas that they want to examine? Perhaps the Minister could tell us how they are proceeding, based on the fact that Cabinet has not given them any direction yet with respect to privatization.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It has been stated over and over and over again in this Legislature by me and the Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation. The direction that was given was to explore involving First Nations in the Energy Corporation and possibly other Yukoners. That is the preliminary investigation that has gone on. That was what Mr. Boylan was hired to do. His report is now going to Cabinet before any further decisions will be made.

Mrs. Firth:

I understand that the Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation has been having some discussions and negotiations, as well. He has stood up in the House and told us that.

I am trying to find out if there is any organized effort or if everyone is going off in their own direction. I think it is fair to say that it appears that there are people going off in their own direction with respect to privatization, the development of the energy policy, and so on. I register that as a concern. I do not think it is a very organized way to go about establishing policy. I suppose we are going to have to wait to see what happens.

Perhaps the Minister could give us the work plan that his department has with respect to the development of this policy, so that we can get a better understanding of how they are developing it. Could he provide that for us?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

First of all, about the Member's comment about this not being an organized endeavour in the development of policy, I believe that if the Member had paid attention in Question Period, the Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation answered that question quite clearly.

The work plan right now is to finish developing this policy. That is what we are working on right now.

Mrs. Firth:

I gather then that there really is no work plan; there is nothing. All this stuff we were told for the last 18 months about how this comprehensive policy was being developed was just that: stuff we were told is happening.

That is why we have to ask such detailed questions. The Ministers opposite stand up and say that they are working hard on a comprehensive energy policy, that it will be coming shortly and will be tabling it in the spring or in the fall. When we get more specific, we discover that the government does not even have a work plan to develop an energy policy.

I just want to register another concern on behalf of the people I represent and reinforce the reason I feel comfortable standing here and suggesting to the government that they are not very well organized with respect to this whole area.

It was an area that was a big commitment in the Yukon Party's four-year plan. Developing energy was a priority. They had eight, nine or 10 points on things they were going to do. It appears that they have not made much progress with this plan. I would register this as a concern. I hope the Minister takes it as good, constructive criticism, and that they will get organized and get down to work so that we can have a comprehensive energy policy.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite would have the government spend all its time making up work plans, rather than accomplishing something.

The Member opposite stands there with the four-year plan and says we have not accomplished much but, when I look at those points, there are quite a few that have already been incorporated.

Mrs. Firth:

I am just making a suggestion to the government. If they want to be better organized, perhaps they should start doing some planning. The track record so far does not indicate that there has been a lot of planning done. I am not asking the Government Leader to make a work plan that is 3,500 pages long, but it would be kind of reassuring to the public to know that the government does have some plans and is doing some planning, and is not just running off in four different directions. What was it the Minister said? All the paths lead down the same road, or they all lead to the same place, or something. I hope that is what happens. It will not be from planning; it will be by luck.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

It is the end result that counts and, as we have stated already, we have accomplished quite a bit in the field of energy, and we will continue to work on those areas that are a priority to this government.

Mr. Cable:

When the Minister for the Energy Corporation introduced his non-utility generator policy, there was a reaction from one of the presidents of the local non-utility generators that it was like leaving the fox in charge of the chicken coop. That is a sentiment with which I agree.

It is useful to have the Energy Corporation help develop the policy, but I do not think it is standard drill to have one of the interested parties actually generate the policy. There is a relationship between these non-utility generators and the Energy Corporation that could potentially cause some arguments between them - on the pricing of electricity, for example.

Is the Government Leader comfortable with having his associate and his Energy Corporation develop that policy - sort of running around loose without input from Economic Development?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I certainly feel quite comfortable, and I do not believe that it is putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Clearly, the Yukon Energy Corporation consulted with Economic Development when they put the policy together. Ultimately, they are the ones who are going to have to buy the power from the non-utility generators, therefore, they should be the ones helping to develop a policy that they and this government feel comfortable with.

Mr. Cable:

There is a concept called avoided costs, which has a whole bunch of different meanings to it. I think the utilities conventionally interpret the concept in their favour. There may be some overall policy directions that may dictate that the government not go along with that.

Is the Government Leader saying that the policy ultimately will be developed by the Yukon Energy Corporation and left with the Energy Corporation to put in final form?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am not sure what the Member is after, but if he is alluding to the possibility that Economic Development should be responsible for non-utility generators and they should set the price that the Energy Corporation has to pay, I cannot go along with that rationale.

There is a cost to the Energy Corporation for producing energy, and, basically, what we have said to them is that we have a non-utility generator policy in place, whereby if they can produce power cheaper than we can produce it, taking into consideration all costs, then we are prepared to move in that direction.

Clearly, this is not trying to put government funds into creating another industry. This has to be private sector development that is going to be able to have their profit margin within the price range so that they are able to sell to the utility, and the utility is going to have to be able to buy it at a cost that is as cheap or cheaper than what they can produce themselves.

Mr. Cable:

The ultimate arbitrator right now will be the

Page Number 2541

Public Utilities Board, but the board needs some statutory direction as to what avoided cost is, and that is the function of the government; it is not the function of the Energy Corporation.

I do not think that we would want the Department of Indian Affairs to take over disbandment of the Department of Indian Affairs when the Indian Act is done away with. In the same sense, doing away with the Yukon Energy Corporation in its present form should not be left to the Yukon Energy Corporation. Does the Minister not see the inherent conflict in leaving that policy direction with the Yukon Energy Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Yukon Energy Corporation is not dealing with doing away with the Yukon Energy Corporation. They are dealing with the ability to possibly buy power cheaper than what they can generate themselves. As far as Order-in-Council 91/92 goes, it is being reviewed by the Department of Economic Development for the Yukon Public Utilities Board. It is not being reviewed by the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Mr. Cable:

I think the Minister misunderstood what I was getting at. If the privatization issue is left with the Yukon Energy Corporation, does the Minister not see an inherent conflict with the ideas being spun out of the Yukon Energy Corporation, rather than the Department of Economic Development? I think it is conventional, and Mr. Rae probably asked his economic department to look at it, and Mr. Wells probably asked his economic department to look at it - not the utility.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Once again, we are in the preliminary stages of this, and that may change as we go to the next stage.

Mrs. Firth:

Could the Minister explain that for us? What does he mean by "we are in the preliminary stage?" When would he see that changing? What would have to happen for that to change?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Again, I believe I just explained to the Member opposite that we are going to be reviewing the report by Mr. Boylan, and Cabinet will make decisions after that.

Mrs. Firth:

Could we have the report? We would then be a little better informed about the direction the government is going in. If they cannot give us a work plan, or some idea about it, could they give us a copy of the report so that we can review the recommendations to see what options the government has - what options there are for Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will check into it. I cannot make a commitment now; the report was done for Cabinet. I will see if it can be made available to the Members opposite, but I cannot make that commitment tonight.

Ms. Commodore:

I have a couple of short questions in regard to the manner in which this government goes about planning the economy of the Yukon. I speak specifically about the plan to accommodate hotel owners by permitting video lottery terminals.

It appeared right from the start that a lot of people were opposed to VLTs and there was a study done by an internal group of the government. The study that was done indicated that there would be a lot of social problems as a result of gambling. Then, the report was sent to the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment for a consultation process. A lot of the information was taken out of the study in regard to the social problems that would occur.

I wonder whether or not the Minister responsible for Economic Development can tell me how they make those decisions. What do they base the decisions on when they proceed with hearings and use the Council on the Economy and the Environment at a great expense to gather that kind of information? Where does gambling fall into their economic plan?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe I stood up in the House several times and said that we, as a government, were approached by more than just the hotel association. We were approached by two First Nations, as well as the hotel association and private individuals, to have expanded gambling in the Yukon. We felt that the best avenue available to us was to put it out for public consultation through the Council on the Economy and the Environment.

I find it odd that the Member over there is accusing us about VLTs in the Yukon, because, clearly, she was the Minister of Justice when they approved the VLTs for Gertie's. They were the first ones who did it in the Yukon. This is just expanding it further - if it goes ahead.

Ms. Commodore:

Gertie's is already in operation; it is not something new. There was an addition to it. Every time we ask a question of that side of the House, we are trying to find out where this government is coming from. We are trying to find out what they are doing. Every time they try to cover up the things that they do, they get back at us by saying, "What about you? Why did you do this?" That does not give me the answers that I need. I am trying to find out from these people - these boys on the other side of the House - exactly where they are coming from.

I would like to know if, when the Minister was approached by the two First Nations, he then tried to find out from them whether or not they were going to support a gambling situation. The very first call that I got, after he announced that he was going to send his committee out to hear people, was from the Council for Yukon Indians, who appear to be very opposed to the government's plan. I am wondering whether or not he, himself, called CYI to talk about gambling, and the effect that they thought it might have on First Nations people as well as other people who would probably be using the gambling terminals and spending money and possibly losing money. People come up from the south and talk about setting up a gambling casino, and they talk about all the money that will be generated, but where is the money going to be coming from? It is not going to be coming from rich people; it is going to be coming from very poor people. I think that we have a really bad situation here. I would like him to let me know whether or not he did contact CYI after he had heard from these two First Nations groups about whether or not they would approve this gambling process that was going to be started by his Council on the Economy and the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, I certainly did not contact CYI directly. These people, as well as other people, approached us, as I have said. I told the Member opposite that we felt it was an issue that should go out for public consultation, and we are waiting for the report from the Council on the Economy and the Environment, which is due by the end of this month.

Ms. Commodore:

It appears that this government does not really have an economic plan. It takes a few people to come to him and say, "Hey, this sounds like a good idea, John. Shall we try it? How can we do it?" Then he will turn around and send his Council on the Economy and the Environment out to do consultation. I am getting really disturbed about the things I am hearing here. People are asking questions in this House about what this government is doing. We want to know what their plan is. Where do we go from here? We are not seeing any evidence of any upturn in the economy. I really am disturbed about the manner in which they have gone about doing the consultation process regarding gambling. As I have said in this House before, more than anything else, I have had calls from people who are opposed to gambling because of the social problems that would occur as a result of it. I have also been told by a lot of people that it does not matter what the people say, they are going to go ahead with it anyway - he is going to approve it. That is devastating to me.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

You are damned if you do, and you are damned if you do not. If we do not consult, we are told we do not talk to people or do enough. If we consult, we are asked why we are doing it.

Page Number 2542

This is a very emotional issue. It is an issue that should have public input before any decisions are made. There have been no decisions made, and there will not be any made, or even considered, until such a time as we receive a report from the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. They have held extensive hearings in the Yukon on the subject.

Ms. Commodore:

If someone has a plan and hears from about 10 people who say they have a great plan that will do the economy of the Yukon some good, it does not appear that there is anything in place to indicate that they are actually planning the economy of the Yukon in a manner that would be successful in the end.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Ms. Commodore:

Or disorganized, as the Member for Riverdale South said.

I do not know why the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission is sitting there grinning. I doubt he has a heck of a lot to grin about.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Ms. Commodore:

Yes, he might just sue me - that is right.

All this government requires is that 10 interested people come to them and tell them they have a great idea. Then they go ahead and proceed with the great idea. Is that how this government is running its economic development plan? Nothing else is happening.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite is not listening to anything I have said. I said that this is a very emotional issue. It will be a major change if government is going to allow expanded gambling in the Yukon. We need input from the public before any decisions will be made. That is why we went out for public consultation.

Ms. Commodore:

The Government Leader already has a report that was done by an internal working committee. We have read it. It was very negative. It indicated that any kind of gambling in the Yukon would cause a lot of social problems and probably, in the end, would cost this government more money. Even the people who are running casinos came here and said the same thing. They know there are going to be social problems.

The Government Leader can stand there and tell me that I never listen to what he is saying. I listen to everything he says. Half of it does not make sense. That is where our problem is.

However, what is the next plan? How many other buddies of his are coming to him and saying that they have a great idea and can he do something about it. I am getting a little confused here.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

If the Member opposite is so sure that there are so many people against it, that is probably the report that came back from the Council on the Economy and the Environment. I do not know what she is afraid of. If she is so certain that this is such a negative thing to be bringing in, then clearly the Council on the Economy and the Environment is going to get that feedback from the people and it will be refused.

Ms. Commodore:

It is not that I am afraid. I have been hearing from people and I am in this House for a reason - to speak for some of those people who come to me with problems and concerns. I have to make those concerns known. He can stand up in the House and ask what I am afraid of. I have the right to stand here and ask him questions on behalf of those Yukoners who come to me with their concerns, and that is exactly what I am doing. It is no joke. He can laugh all he wants, but that is why we are here.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I wonder if the people are coming to the Member with concerns about the bingo halls we have in the Yukon because they clearly are the most addictive form of gambling there is.

Ms. Commodore:

He can bet they are coming to me about bingo halls in the Yukon. That is exactly what they are doing. They are coming to me about what is happening with the bingos; they are talking to me about the illegal bingos they have in the Yukon - and everybody knows about them. Of course they are coming to me about that, but those are things that are already being done, they are already in existence. The VLTs are not.

Mrs. Firth:

I would like to ask the Minister some questions about the Council on the Economy and the Environment and their minutes. I asked the Minister some questions in Question Period about a letter that I had received from the chair of the council, in which he told us that the minutes were not for public record. The Minister said he was also surprised to hear that and he was going to look into the issue for me. Can he tell me when we are going to get copies of the minutes of the Council on the Economy and the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I did take up the issue with the chair of the Council on the Economy and the Environment and he described to me the discussions that took place between the council - that a consensus decision was made to not release the minutes but to release quarterly reports. The reason and the rationale behind it was that they felt that members would speak more freely in the council if the minutes were not public information, and they felt that a quarterly report would be better than watered-down or edited minutes.

This is an issue the council is discussing among themselves. They were supposed to do it at their last meeting, but I have not got the report from that meeting. They were going to address the issue again and I am waiting to see what they say to me before I give any instructions.

Mrs. Firth:

I think the laughter is about who is giving who instructions. The Minister stood up in the House and said that he agreed 100 percent with the principle that the minutes should be made public. The Minister went so far as to say that the meetings were public and could not understand why the minutes would not be public. Is the Minister giving his board direction, or is the board telling him how to run the government?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I am working with the board to resolve this issue. They are talking about public meetings and in-camera meetings. They are talking about whether or not they will release minutes, edited minutes or quarterly reports. They are meeting among themselves to address this issue and, when I hear what they have to say, then I will make my decision.

Mrs. Firth:

I think it is absolutely ridiculous. This is the government of people who campaigned on open government and freedom of information, who criticized the previous government, because they were not open, they were secretive and would not give out information. The other government provided the minutes of all the meetings to us, without any question. This is a board supported by the taxpayer. It is supposed to be working on behalf of the taxpayer, and we are being told that the board cannot speak freely if someone is going to read or hear what they have to say. That does not make any sense. I really do not understand what the Minister's point is.

I can see other Members who are anxious to get into this debate, so I will let them. I am going to make my representation again. I think those minutes should be public, and I think they should be provided to us after every meeting, without our having to constantly harangue the chair to get them.

I am going to be asking the Minister to provide us with a schedule of the meetings. I will go to every meeting and see what is said.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will take note of the Member's representation.

Mr. Penikett:

I have heard some simply astounding things today, not only on economic policy and energy policy, but now in terms of the Council on the Economy and the Environment, whose

Page Number 2543

purpose I think the government has been willfully misunderstanding. Let me recap for a minute.

I was the author of a motion, as an Opposition Member of this House back in the early 1980s, to originally establish the predecessor body to the Council on the Economy and the Environment. The original motion that was supported unanimously in the House was for a public body, which included public representatives, from a range of opinions - not just appointees of the government of the day - to provide advice from various sectors of the economy, from people who were there, not as representatives of the government, but representatives of different sectors, different regions and different interests in the economy, and who were there to represent their own views and the views of those interests. The idea was that the views would be heard in the body, discussed in the body, and some kind of consensus would be reached and advice given to the government.

There was never, before now, any question about who was in charge - about who made the rules under which this advisory body to Cabinet operated. It is the first time in the history of this Legislature that I have ever heard a Government Leader or a Minister say that an advisory body to Cabinet would tell the Government Leader or the Cabinet what to do - give the advice but, actually, when it was a matter of public policy, such as the provision of minutes, that the Government Leader would be subject to some kind of oversight by this committee.

When we decided that this body was so useful that it should be enshrined in law, it was done so following the counsel ...

Mr. Sewell is advising the Minister; maybe I will wait until he is finished.

When we enshrined the body in law in the Environment Act, the Economic Development Act, following the adoption in this House unanimously of the Yukon Economic Strategy, where - in the land claims agreement, the Economic Development Act, and the Environment Act - it was said there would be annual reviews of the Economic Strategy - the one adopted by this House, not the one that has never been debated or approved in the House by the Member opposite - the government of the day deliberately limited its ability and the ability of future governments to set up a simple patronage body. It was intended that the appointees from those democratic, representative organizations - whether they were the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Mines, labour interests, First Nation interests, the municipalities, or women's interests I guess women have now been expelled though from the body by the Government Leader, have they not? The women's movement is not represented any more - it was intended that those people give advice in public, that they have frank discussions, but they were not giving secret advice to the Cabinet. They were advising Cabinet, and that is quite proper. There were times when the government may wish to, as a special provision, ask the council to advise them in confidence on some matter, but the general rule adopted - and it was a rule adopted by the government - was that the minutes be made public and given to Members.

The other day, the Government Leader said he agreed with the principle that the minutes should be public and, indeed, as the Member for Riverdale South has said, the meetings are public. I do not know how one can have a public body, meeting in public, and then have secret minutes. I do not know why a public body meeting in public should have any concern about a need to water down the minutes. I do not know why a public body, meeting in public, should have any worry about any of the minutes. If any one of us, or any citizen, can go to the meeting and hear what is going on, why should the Government Leader be apprehensive at all about the nature of the minutes? Why should the chair of the body have any concern about the minutes?

I will not get into it tonight, because it would take too long, but I believe the Government Leader is fundamentally wrong. I do not think he has any mandate or right in law to do what he is doing in terms of the Economic Strategy and ignoring what I regard as the legal requirements to do annual reviews on the strategy, especially since our economy has been in crisis since he took office.

He has never consulted people about the big question of the economy. I know why. He does not want to know what the people would say. They would tell him something very different from what that quite extraordinary, and quite silly, document he campaigned on proposes.

I do not want to get into that tonight. What I do not understand is what the Government Leader sees as his relationship with the chair of the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment? I know he is a supporter of the Members opposite, and that is fine. But what is the chain of command?

When they were in Opposition, they argued that we had to take the advice of all advisory bodies, and that we should always accept it, and that Cabinet should simply be a rubber stamp. That was the argument made during the campaign. As soon as they were elected, however, we know they did not do that - certainly not in Renewable Resources.

What ought to be the relationship between the chair of an advisory body, like the Council on the Economy and the Environment, and the Government Leader, or the Minister of Economic Development and the chair of the Council on the Economy and the Environment? What is the chain of command? What is the reporting relationship?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite has hit on two subjects, and I will answer them both.

Clearly, the orders go from me to the Council on the Economy and the Environment. Let me go back to what has happened here and why I am not prepared to give that instruction until I hear the council's deliberations.

When the council was formed, it took the Environment Act and the Economic Development Act, and went through all the regulations. There was no instruction from me, at that point, that the minutes were to be public. I did not realize there was an instruction I had to give, at that point. It is nowhere in the Environment Act, which the council falls under, that the minutes had to be made public.

It says something about regular reports from the Council on the Economy and the Environment. I am not sure of the exact wording, but there is nothing that says that the minutes have to be made public. They, among themselves, decided that they could give better advice to government if the minutes were not public and they could have free and open discussions. Not all of their meetings are in public.

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member opposite should let me finish. I have given them the opportunity to address the issue again before I issue instructions to them. That is what happened with that particular issue. They are talking now about having half of their meeting public and half in camera. They are talking about those issues in order that there can be free, open and frank discussion among all members. Their concern is that some members will not speak out and put their views on record.

I will be addressing the issue and I expect that I will be hearing from them very shortly.

I clearly do not agree with the Member opposite that we are breaking any law. The requirements under the UFA with regard to an annual review of the Yukon Economic Strategy, in chapter 22(7)(2), states that the "Yukon shall ensure that at least one-quarter of the delegates invited to attend an annual review of the Yukon Economic Strategy are Yukon Indian people or their representatives".

Page Number 2544

However, an annual review is not defined in the UFA. It is conceivable that sector-by-sector discussions would fulfill the meaning of that term.

Chair:

Order please. The time being 8:30 p.m., we will have a brief recess. That is the instruction from the House leaders.

Recess

Chair:

I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is there further general debate on Economic Development?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

When I was interrupted at the break, I was saying that the Yukon Economic Strategy is not defined in the umbrella final agreement, and could therefore mean the economic strategy of the government of the day. Section 22(7)(2) of the UFA states that the Yukon shall make best efforts to structure the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment so that at least one-quarter of its members are Yukon Indian people. The Yukon government has complied with that section. As I said earlier, I believe that the sector-by-sector review of the economy of the Yukon will satisfy chapter 22(7)(2) of the UFA.

Mr. Penikett:

First, let me deal with earlier point of the Member about the views of the members of the Council on the Economy and the Environment. The Council on the Economy and the Environment was not structured as a private club. The members are public citizens representing public bodies, public organizations, democratic representative organizations. They are there to represent the views of those organizations, which are not matters of dealing with secrets or confidential matters at all. They are dealing with advice about public policy. The nonsense about them maybe having some discussions that they do not want to have revealed is ludicrous, because the intent - the way we structured our council, our round table on the economy and the environment - was that they would represent the views that had been developed by the Conservation Society or the Chamber of Commerce in public. They conveyed them in public. If there could be a consensus achieved of views of various organizations, that was very valuable for the government.

Let me be quite clear to the Government Leader about this: nobody who participated in the drafting of that section in the umbrella final agreement had any illusions about the intent of the section. For him to suggest that it could be any old economic strategy - Northwestel's economic strategy, John Ostashek's economic strategy, the Chamber of Commerce's economic strategy, or the big game outfitters' economic strategy - is complete nonsense. He would have to be either completely foolish or completely devious to make such an argument.

The fact of the matter is that everybody at the table understood what the intent was, and the Government Leader has deliberately perverted the intent.

The intent was that there would be an annual review of the economic strategy approved in this House - the only one that has ever been approved in this House - called the Yukon Economic Strategy. Anybody who reads English knows that something with capital letters - in other words, a proper noun - refers to a specific strategy, one approved by resolution of this House and referenced in a number of laws.

So, this bunkum that it could mean any old strategy is purely codswallop. Only someone who is trying to equivocate themselves from a legal obligation could make that claim.

If I genuinely believed that the strategy developed after hundreds of meetings by thousands of people and adopted in this House should be changed, then the responsible thing for the government to do is to bring forward a proposal, go through a consultation exercise, or mandate the Council on the Economy and the Environment to go out and talk to people and bring changes to this House - but they have never done that. They have not consulted with anybody; they have never even talked to the Opposition; they have simply done it their way - the dictatorial way.

I have to say, as a long-time Member of this House, that the Member opposite, the Government Leader, was not a Member of this House, and he did not participate in those decisions. However, if we are going to ask citizens to respect decisions made in this House, to respect laws made in this House, to respect something as profoundly important as a land claims agreement, then have a Government Leader and a government trying to wriggle out of provisions that were clearly put there for one purpose, and pretend that they have some other purpose, it is really quite shameful.

The Government Leader cannot stand in this House and suggest there was any other intent in that clause than that the Economic Strategy be brought back for annual review in the same kind of conference that created it - that business people would have a voice, working people would have a voice, rural people would have a voice, women, environmentalists and aboriginal people would all be guaranteed a voice, and we would try and achieve something this government has never tried to do: have a consensus view of how we should address the economic situation - the evolving economic situation - from year to year. That was the intent, and the intent is quite clear.

To suggest that somehow the people who were at that table did not know what they were doing - that the people who voted for it in this House thought they were doing something else - is patent nonsense.

I could respect the Government Leader if he said, "I do not agree with the Economic Strategy, even though thousands of people were involved in developing it; I do not agree with the decision of the previous House and I am going to bring forward a proposal to change it." He did not do that, he simply said, "I do not like a law. I do not like three laws. I do not like that part of the land claims agreement. I am not going to obey it. I am going to find a way to wheedle out of it."

If we want young people to grow up in this territory respecting what this House does, it does not matter if something was done by a previous government; it does not matter if it was done by a government 10 years ago. Unless we go through the due democratic process of changing the law, that Member does not have the right to change it on his dictate. He does not have the right. He does not have the moral right and I do not believe he has the democratic right, and, certainly, not with something that is embedded in the land claims legislation.

I am upset and I have a good reason to be upset, because when you put years of work into something and it is passed by the Legislature, put into law, one would hope that people who succeed you will either respect that law or go through the democratic process to change it.

That is what the Yukon Party promised to do in its campaign, but of course that has all been forgotten.

The Government Leader may think that it is terribly funny and it does not matter what promises this House made to the people of the day, it does not matter what law we passed, he is going to wriggle out of it and find a way to evade obligations and responsibilities created by previous governments, created by honorably negotiated agreements between First Nations and this government.

I think it is a great shame and a great pity for this territory, and it is totally unnecessary.

The really sad thing about this is that we are here with an economy in crisis. Every day I talk to people who ask why the government has not consulted with them. Why did they not bring people together, why did they not listen to us? Why do they not

Page Number 2545

get together and brainstorm? Why are we not involved in some discussion about the biggest economic problems of all: unemployment and inflation. We have not had inflation problems over the last few years and we now have inflation exceeding the national levels. We have people leaving the territory, and we have the worst gross national product statistics in the country.

The government does not want to discuss it, except with people who will act with its own prejudices on the subject.

Let me ask the Government Leader this question, and I will put the question in a kind way. What does the Government Leader think the intent of the parties to the umbrella final agreement was when they made an agreement that First Nations would be invited to an annual review of the economic strategy. What does he think the intent of the negotiators was?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I can understand the Member opposite being upset because he was very proud of his Yukon Economic Strategy, but this whole tirade about breaking the law is unnecessary - the UFA is not even law yet. It is not law yet, if we are going to be talking about following the law. It has not been passed by the House of Commons. It is not law.

The Member opposite is so upset, but we have not yet had any complaints from First Nations that we did not hold an annual economic conference. We have not had any complaints from them on this issue. We are holding one this year. We did not hold one last year. We had just formed the Council on the Economy and the Environment, and we are holding one this year that we clearly believe will satisfy that section of the UFA.

Mr. Penikett:

I will not pursue now the implications of the Government Leader's statement that the UFA is not law andtherefore the government is not responsible for the contents of it, or obligated under the UFA. I find that a quite extraordinary statement, given that it was passed in this House quite some months ago. Let me ask the Government Leader this, because he did not answer the question that I asked him: what does the Government Leader think the intent of the negotiators was when they put that provision into the UFA? Could he answer that question?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe I already answered it. I said that it clearly could be the economic strategy of the government of the day.

Mr. Penikett:

I did not ask him what it could be, what it might be or what it possibly could be at some other day, in some other time, with some other players and some other negotiators in some other situation. I asked him what he thinks the intent was of the people negotiating that agreement, at the time it was made.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have already answered that.

Mr. Penikett:

With respect, the Government Leader has not answered the question. What was the intent of the negotiators in that clause?

Some Hon. Member:

(Inaudible)

Mr. Penikett:

He says he was not there. Has he sought the advice of anyone who was there as to the intent?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I have sought the advice of my department. This is what they tell me: they believe that we are satisfying that clause - chapter 22(7) of the UFA - by holding the annual economic conference on a sector-by-sector basis. We did not hold one last year, as I said, because we had just formed the Council on the Economy and the Environment, but we are doing it this year and we believe that it will satisfy that chapter of the UFA.

Mr. Penikett:

It is a matter of record that it took the government eight or nine months after the election to establish a council, something they could have done within a week of being elected if the Council on the Economy and the Environment was important to them.

The Government Leader has said that he does not know what the intent is, because he was not there. Can I ask him if he has ever consulted with anyone who was party to the agreements - anyone who was involved in the negotiations - about what they thought the intent was? The second part of the question is: does he believe that there is a moral obligation on the part of government to respect the intent of legislation, especially when it involves the intent of provisions of a treaty?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe we are respecting the intent of it.

Mr. Penikett:

I was there. I know what the intent was. I have told the Government Leader he is not respecting the intent. What contrary advice has he obtained? Has he talked to anyone else who was part of those agreements who has told him that Tony Penikett is wrong, that he does not know what he is talking about and that he does not know why that provision was put in there? Has he any other evidence?

He is getting the advice of the Minister of Education, who also was not there, either. Perhaps the Government Leader could tell us who told him that I do not know what the intent was? Who told him that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not want to debate with him. He is not here now. We are here, and we are following what we believe to be the intent of the umbrella final agreement. We believe that we are satisfying that intent.

Mr. Penikett:

The Member opposite is not an economist. He is not a lawyer. He is not a land claims negotiator. He was not present. He was not a participant. I have said that he was deliberately perverting the intent, and I stand by that. Let me just read another law called The Economic Development Act, Chapter 10, entitled The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment: "10(1) The Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment, established under the Environment Act, has, in addition to the powers and duties set out in that act, the following functions under this act for matters related to the economy: To review policies, strategic, legislative and program initiatives and provide advice about them to the Executive Council; (b) Monitor progress on the implementation of the Yukon Economic Strategy..." - capital letters, a precise reference to a precise document adopted in this House - "...and evaluate the success of these actions taken in guiding environmentally sound economic development diversification in the Yukon." Does the Government Leader believe, or does the Department of Economic Development believe, that the Government of the Yukon is honourably following the provisions of this statute, including the clause I just quoted?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Department of Economic Development is maintaining and implementing an economic strategy. The basis for that strategy was set out in the four-year plan. The election platform of the Yukon Party was that four-year plan, and this strategy was ratified by the most comprehensive and the most valid public review: a territorial election.

Mr. Penikett:

Boy, have we got news for him. Let me ask the Government Leader this question - and I ask him to pay attention to this: this is an act that was assented to on May 14, 1992. In the definitions and the preamble, it refers to the Yukon Economic Strategy, and the Yukon Conservation Strategy, and subsequent provisions refer to the obligations of the government in terms of monitoring progress and implementation of the Economic Strategy. Is the Government Leader telling the House that the economic strategy referred to in this act, and in the legislation passed in May of 1992, somehow could magically refer to the platform document of the Yukon Party? How is that possible?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Once again, I will say that I believe we are complying with the laws of this territory.

Mr. Penikett:

The platform of the Yukon Party was first

Page Number 2546

published, as far as we know, in October of 1992. This law was passed in May, 1992. As far as I know, no one in this House at the time had ever heard of the four-year plan entitled Toward Self-Sufficiency by the 21st Century - I think that is what it is called. Decade of Prosperity - no, I do not think that was it.

Nobody had ever heard of that platform document before October 1992. I would like the Government Leader to refer to any legal opinion anywhere that tells us that a law passed in May 1992, in this House could refer to anything other than the Yukon Economic Strategy, which had been adopted in this House. Does he seriously contend that this law, passed in May 1992, actually refers, magically and prophetically, to the campaign document of the Yukon Party, which we never saw until October 1992? Is that what he is telling us?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Clearly, the Member opposite does not for one minute think that the Yukon Economic Strategy was carved in stone, that nothing would ever change. In fact, there are clauses in it to say that other major factors on the horizon will affect the strategy. Clearly, it is not written in stone, and the department is maintaining and implementing economic strategy for the Yukon. As a result of the changing circumstances and the difference of political and economic philosophy, the actual strategies have changed from the document to which the Member opposite is referring.

Mr. Penikett:

Bingo. Exactly, and that is why the previous government provided for annual reviews, so that whomever was in power at the time, whatever the economic circumstances were at the time, whatever industries had risen or fallen, whatever the changing nature in the economy was, the strategy could stay relevant by having annual reviews. They also anticipated a process - a democratic process - by which everybody in the territory who wanted to have a say in the annual reviews of the strategy would have a chance to have their voice heard.

All sectors of the economy and all interests - business, labour, environmental, women, rural municipalities, and First Nations - would have a chance to have some input.

That was anticipated and provided for in law in the umbrella final agreement, the Economic Development Act and the Environment Act, because we knew the strategy was not carved in stone. In fact, it was never intended to be carved in stone.

Given that the strategy and the law provide for a democratic process by which it could be reviewed - not in isolation by a Cabinet, secretly at a Cabinet table, or in consultation with select groups, but with a wide range of interests - why has the government not followed that process in reviewing the strategy that was adopted by this House, unlike the one the Government Leader is claiming to now support?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I said that the Council on the Economy and the Environment is going to be embarking upon a review. They are going to be doing it in a different manner from how the Member opposite would do it, but it will be a sector-by-sector review that will have public input from all the people and all the parties mentioned by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I believe this will satisfy that chapter of the umbrella final agreement.

Mr. Penikett:

For a start let us make this plain: there has been no review of any economic strategy since this government came to office. This government is now heading toward the end of their second year.

We have a problem on that score, because the government is not living up to the provisions of the legislation in that respect.

Even if the government claimed that they were reviewing the strategy that they had made up simply as their platform document, even though it had not been mandated by anybody - it was not the product of wide public consultation, outside of their own party - they still have not lived up to that provision.

The support from one-third of the electorate does not constitute a huge mandate for imposing their will on the whole population. They have a right to govern, but the legislation that we are talking about was intended to be a reform in that it would take away power from Cabinet, not to share only with the Legislature, but also with citizens in the territory.

Will the Government Leader shortly be making a statement in this House, or providing a written return, telling us the schedule for the reviews of the economic strategy and the conservation strategy, as required by law in this House, and indicating to us the ways in which the government believes it is complying with the pieces of legislation I have referred to this evening?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will take that representation from the Member opposite under advisement.

Mr. McDonald:

I think we established with the previous Minister that there was a problem, and I think we have identified that the problem continues to exist now. There are a couple of small details that puzzled me, and I would just like to get the Minister's reaction.

When he reassured the House that the meetings for the Council on the Economy and the Environment were open to the public, the Minister had presumably made that determination, and he seemed quite clear and quite confident that that was the case. What would the rationale be for keeping the minutes private and, at the same time, allowing the public into the meetings? What is the reason for that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I made it quite clear in the House that I did not see any problem. If they were going to have public meetings, then the minutes should be made public. However, I am clearly trying to say to the Members opposite that the council made some decisions, based on the Environment Act and the economic strategy, and the regulations pertaining to it, among themselves that they did not feel they wanted to make the minutes public. Now, I do not agree with that decision, but I am also not prepared to order them to make minutes public where people spoke but were not aware that they were going to become public documents. They are addressing the issue again. I will be meeting with them shortly to discuss it. I will be giving orders after that, based on what they have to say. They are addressing the issue of minutes being public, and they are addressing the issues of having some or part of the meetings available to the general public. They do want to be able to meet in-camera to have open and frank discussions. They are operating on a consensus basis. I believe it would be unfair for me to order them to make those minutes public now, when there were comments made by members there who were not aware that those minutes were going to be made public.

Mr. McDonald:

That is too crafty by half. When the Minister was asked whether or not the meetings of the Council on the Economy and the Environment were public and whether or not people could attend, the Minister said, unequivocally, yes. He did not say that Members could go to public meetings. He said that the meetings that the Council on the Economy and the Environment held were public. There is a difference.

I think the Government Leader is equivocating now that perhaps the meetings are not public, or perhaps they will not be public in the future. However, until now, he said that the meetings were public. If people can go to the meetings and are able to witness what people say, why should the record of those meetings be private? Why should they ever have been private?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I just addressed that. I was under the impression that all of their meetings were public. However, they have had in-camera meetings, at which minutes were taken. There is no difficulty in making the minutes of the public meetings

Page Number 2547

available to Members opposite.

Mr. McDonald:

I do not know. Now we have a moving target. For the benefit of the listening public, is it any wonder we have to get so extraordinarily precise in our questions? Who would have thought that if we had asked whether or not we could go to the meetings of the Council on the Economy and the Environment and the Minister has said that yes, we could go to them, because they are public, that what he was actually saying was that for all public meetings of the Council on the Economy and the Environment, we can go - thanks very much for the invitation. Now, however, we know that if there were public meetings, the minutes of the meetings can be delivered to us.

Could the Minister tell us when we can get the minutes of the public meetings the council has had, and could he be pretty precise about that? Will the minutes of the public section of those meetings be complete - will they cover the meeting from beginning to end - and will they be official minutes?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know precisely when I will have the opportunity to meet with the chair but I will try to do it in the next few days, and possibly I can have something for the Members next week.

Mr. Cable:

I have some questions on the land claim benefits.

I asked the Minister's predecessor during the last session what was being done to calculate the economic benefits - the benefits that are referred to in the budget speech. The Minister, with his Finance hat on, said, "As we approach the settlement of Yukon Indian land claims, First Nations are going to have an even greater impact on the Yukon economy." He went on to refer to the benefits flowing from the Tetlit Gwitchin claim in the Northwest Territories. Has the Minister or his department established a process for calculating the economic benefits that will flow from the land claims?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

No, we have not established a formula for calculating the benefits, but the Member opposite has to be aware that if we have a group of people in our society who have a land base and who have some financial resources, clearly they are going to contribute greatly to the economic wellbeing of the territory.

Mr. Cable:

I think we are all aware of the fact that the land claims are going to be passed by the federal Parliament imminently. When that happens there will be funds flowing to at least four of the First Nations. Has the Government Leader had any idea, or calculated anything whatsoever in the way of tax streams or spinoffs that will happen from the land claims? What led him to say that First Nations are going to have an even greater impact on the Yukon economy? Was he saying that there is going to be a significant impact, or a minor impact? Just what was he saying?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have about 8,000 Yukoners who are going to be coming into more that $200 million over the next 15 years - permanent Yukoners who are going to be spending their money in the Yukon. The business community in the Yukon has already felt the effect of the Tetlit Gwitchin settlement. I have talked to businessmen who say that the Tetlin Gwitchin is buying a lot of their stuff here in the Yukon. There has been a lot of snow machines and vehicles sold - they come down here for meetings. They use this as a supply centre because it is closer and easier for them to get to than Yellowknife. Surely, the Member opposite does not believe that there will be no major economic benefit to the territory when 8,000 people in the Yukon come into in excess of $200 million over the next 15 years, and have a land base from which to work.

Mr. Cable:

That is precisely what I believe: that there will be a major impact. That would appear to be the sort of thing that the Department of Economic Development would do - make some projections as to what that economic impact is going to be. What are the tax strains going to be? What are the spinoffs? Is the Government Leader not going to do anything in that area until the money actually starts to flow and Statistics Canada tells him what is happening?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I do not know what the Member opposite would need that information for. We certainly have not looked at what it will be. Statistics Canada collects information on a regular basis. I do not know what the Member is getting at.

Mr. Cable:

We went through this long-winded argument with respect to the forecast his department had done that was rejected out of hand. In the course of that debate, it was indicated that the forecast was useful for the people of the Yukon to find out what was going to take place in the future.

Assumedly, this would be part of a forecast. If several tens of millions of dollars are going to hit this territory in the next 15 years, presumably business people and the First Nations people would find that information interesting and useful for their own business purposes. Would the Minister not agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I would agree with that, but we do not have a settlement yet. We know that four First Nations have signed off and will start to draw benefits. I guess we could start working on that and make projections for the next 15 years on what is going to happen. I believe there is plenty of time to do that. I do not think it is something that we have to do immediately.

I am sure that the statistics branch and the Department of Economic Development will be taking that into consideration when the time is right.

Mr. Cable:

Surely, from the standpoint of job creation, the settlement, which is probably the most significant economic event of the decade - perhaps even more important than casinos, if they ever get off the ground, and certainly more important than these many small mines - is presumably important for people to know about - just the amount of money that is going to flow in. Outside of the social contract aspect of the claims, there is the economic aspect. Would the Minister not agree that at least some effort should be made to forecast these benefits?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Yes. My colleague says we could perhaps urge the Member opposite to get his colleagues in Ottawa to pass it. Then we could start calculating it.

The Member makes a valid point. Perhaps we should be doing some calculating. I will take that under advisement.

Ms. Commodore:

I have a couple of questions, and the first one is with regard to the consultation for VLTs. When does the Minister expect that that consultation process will be completed?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe the consultation process has been completed now. We should be getting a report before the end of May.

Ms. Commodore:

I would like to ask him if he would table in the House the total cost of that process. Because everything is done, he must have that information available. Could he table the total cost of the consultation process, including per diems, travel and whatever else, prior to us leaving the House? The report as well.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I will get the costs of the consultation as soon as possible and table them in the House. When the report is ready, I will be making it available.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I think the Government Leader has really surpassed himself tonight. He has stood up there and said to the Members over here in the Opposition, "Well, I do not understand why the Member wants the information so I am just not going to answer the question." They are just standing up there going, "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah. We do not want to tell, so we will not. We do not have to; we are not going to do it." I think the problem we are facing with the Yukon economy today is that there is a very narrow range of interests represented around the Cabinet table. I

Page Number 2548

believe that we improve the decisions that are made when we include a broader representation in the decision making. That is why the Economic Development Act and the Environment Act said that there would be a balance of interests invited to the annual review of the Yukon Economic Strategy. That is why we need to have environmental interests, working people, women's organizations and labour organizations invited to attend the economic review.

The government has said that they are not going to do it that way. They are not interested in inviting a balance of interests.

I would like to ask the Government Leader why they no longer feel they need to have representatives of women's organizations, such as the Yukon Status of Women Council, participating in a review of the Economic Strategy.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

Women's groups are represented on the Council on the Economy and the Environment. The Council on the Economy and the Environment will be holding public consultations on a sector-by-sector review of the economy of the Yukon and I believe all people in the Yukon will have the opportunity to be heard.

Ms. Moorcroft:

The Minister made the assertion that women's groups are represented on the Council on the Economy and the Environment. Can he tell me what women's groups and which women's interests are represented on the council?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

We have a representative from the Yukon Indian Women's Association on the council.

Ms. Moorcroft:

I certainly applaud that. I am glad they have a representative of the Yukon Indian Women's Association there. I would like to ask the Minister why they do not also have a representative from the Yukon Status of Women Council.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

The Member should go back and read Hansard when we went through this debate. We said then that we had cut down the council and tried to maintain the balance on it. There are other women on the council. What difference does it make whom they represent? They are still women.

Ms. Moorcroft:

For the information of the Government Leader, the Yukon Status of Women Council is one organization of many organizations that exist to further equality for women. A representative of an organization that exists to further equality for women is something that is necessary on the council.

The government eliminated the position that was held by a representative of the Yukon Status of Women Council. The Government Leader has never stood up and said why they did that and why he does not believe there should be a representative of that organization, or an organization like that, which believes in speaking for women having an equal role in society. What is the Minister's reason?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

There is a strong representation of women on the council, and the Member opposite surely does not expect me to believe that the Yukon Status of Women Council represents all women in the Yukon?

Ms. Moorcroft:

I guess I really should not be surprised that the Minister does not seem to understand that the organization is one of many that speaks on behalf of women having equal status in society. It is called the Status of Women Council, because they lobby for women having an equal voice and an equal role in society.

The Minister does not care about that, he is not willing to justify his belief that they are not required there any more, and he is just going to cut them out of the council.

The Minister has proven that attitude toward a lot of groups in the Yukon. We are stepping backward, and I think the narrow decision making that this government engages in, and the fact that they do not listen to Yukon people, is disgraceful. That is what I hear from my constituents when they want to talk about how the government is doing. They say that the government does not listen to people, and they do not care what the people say.

Ms. Moorcroft:

They are not going to review the Yukon Economic Strategy, because they do not want to hear what people have to say. When they do hear what people have to say, they do not pay any attention to it - they do not act on it.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek:

I believe the Member opposite answered her own question. There are many women's groups out there in the Yukon, and we could not possibly put them all on the Council on the Economy and the Environment. I move that you report progress at this time.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker:

I will now call the House to order.

May the House have a report from the Chair of the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. Abel:

The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1994-95, and directed me to report progress on it.

Speaker:

You have heard the report of the Chair of the Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Speaker:

I declare the report carried.

Hon. Mr. Phillips:

I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:

It has been moved by the Hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9:29 p.m.